Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Is the Internet Polarizing U.S. Political Dialogue?" (FreeRepublic mentioned)
Annenberg Journalism School, USC ^ | April 23, 04 | Mark Glaser

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Free Republic; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: alphabetnetworks; bigmedia; callawaaambulance; cheeseandwhine; dairyproducts; fr; freerepublic; frinthenews; internet; mediabais
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-108 next last
To: stands2reason
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).
61 posted on 04/24/2004 9:38:17 AM PDT by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!
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!!
62 posted on 04/24/2004 7:58:00 PM PDT by Piranha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
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.

63 posted on 04/24/2004 9:54:52 PM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (Benedict Arnold was a hero for both sides in the same war, too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice
Wow. Pleasure to see you again!
64 posted on 04/24/2004 10:28:34 PM PDT by txhurl (The Jihadists: spectacular media violence, zero military significance, huge psych significance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
read later bump
65 posted on 04/24/2004 10:30:40 PM PDT by nutmeg (Why vote for Bush? Imagine Commander in Chief John F’in al-Qerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff; Revolting cat!; Wallace T.; af_vet_rr; Semper Paratus; E. Pluribus Unum; ...
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.

66 posted on 04/24/2004 11:28:22 PM PDT by Piranha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

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.

67 posted on 04/25/2004 3:37:10 AM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1122668/posts?page=124#123
68 posted on 04/25/2004 10:56:31 AM PDT by pc93 (Please visit http://bellsouthpwp.net/p/c/pc93/terri_schindler_life_ribbon_campaign.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Piranha; pepsionice
You may be interested in this thread analyzing the perspective of journalism.

69 posted on 04/25/2004 1:45:31 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (Homepage is where the (political) heart is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
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.

70 posted on 04/25/2004 3:36:22 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (crime would drop like a sprung trapdoor if we brought back good old-fashioned hangings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
Wow! A three-year thread!
71 posted on 04/25/2004 4:15:41 PM PDT by Piranha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
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.
72 posted on 04/25/2004 4:18:56 PM PDT by Hacksaw (theocratic paleoconistic Confederate flag waving loyalty oath supporter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
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.
73 posted on 04/26/2004 1:13:33 PM PDT by eno_ (Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice
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?

74 posted on 04/26/2004 1:20:21 PM PDT by eno_ (Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: WilliamofCarmichael
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.
75 posted on 04/26/2004 3:25:50 PM PDT by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
Thanks for the information.
76 posted on 04/26/2004 3:50:17 PM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (Benedict Arnold was a hero for both sides in the same war, too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: aposiopetic
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.

77 posted on 04/26/2004 9:35:00 PM PDT by GOPJ (NFL Owners: Grown men don't watch hollywood peep shows with wives and children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: The kings dead
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.

78 posted on 04/26/2004 9:47:13 PM PDT by Rightwing Conspiratr1 (Lock-n-load!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
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...
79 posted on 04/26/2004 9:49:35 PM PDT by tubebender (My wild oats have turned to shredded wheat...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
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.
80 posted on 04/26/2004 9:53:55 PM PDT by Fiddlstix (This Tagline for sale. (Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-108 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson