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 ...
Silly me; I was under the impression that such behavior had existed since the invention of speech.
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.
I'm still curious about that. What was it she got miffed about?
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).
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).
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.
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.)
I'll add Fox News to that as two most important changes in recent history... some new Voices of America....
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.