Decius wrote:
I don't feel it. Our politics has become deeply partisan. Few people are willing to maintain a healthy disengagement from identification with one of the ruling parties. They use the network to seek out information that confirms their prejudices, true or not. There are minor ways in which this helps. I can access legislation being considered, and I can speak out. But there are major ways in which it doesn't help. People do not know how to think critically. They don't really seek truth. They seek social validation. The truth is rarely the most comfortable option. It has a tendency to challenge you.

I have mixed fellings on this matter.

On the one hand, I see parallels in this discussion to the long (and unnoticed, alas ;) commentary I made about music in this age. I think the foundation exists, but the tools don't yet. We're in the relative stone age... blogs are a lot like newspapers writ small and the much vaunted transformative power of the internet in politics has been, to date, in fundraising and the dissemination of information to the base. The tools to do more than that are in progress, but I think they'll get there in much the same way that I'm hopeful that the tools to find and enjoy a lot more different artists will eventually come into being.

At present, there is certainly a strong echo chamber effect, in which people look to have their opinions validated and get that satisfaction, but at the same time, these blogs couldn't exist without a healthy stream of oppositional writing either. That is, a lot, i dare say most, of the content of the lefty poliblogs are rebuttals or excoriations of righty poliblogs or politicians. That means, at least, that the writers have probably read an opposing view point. At least some of the readers will take the time to do the same, perhaps at first in order to get fodder for their own disapproval, but eventually one is forced, i think, with the fact that reading a viewpoint *only* to find stuff to thrash is a waste of your time... it's more useful to actually critically evaluate it.

Too, i think it's necessary to view this all in the context of the present offline climate, to the extent it's separable. I mentioned in another post earlier that there has been a concerted effort on the part of an influential and determined conservative base to actively undermine the value of subtlety, nuance and reasoned discourse. Starting with the derision of "massachussetts liberal elites" through to the false everyman populism of W and his ilk, and most crucially the framing of every issue as one of good versus evil. When you begin to frame everything in absolutist terms, there's no room for negotiation or subtlety, only opposition. When one position is thought to be absoultely right, then there is no other alternative but that any other position is absolutely wrong. I don't know that the internet can, itself, have much of a positive or ne... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

k wrote:
What I'm hoping the book lays out is a proposal for changing the tone and attitudes for the better in this country.

Do you intend to read it? If so, please do report back...

At present, there is certainly a strong echo chamber effect, in which people look to have their opinions validated and get that satisfaction, but at the same time, these blogs couldn't exist without a healthy stream of oppositional writing either.

Two things I'd like to add to the discussion.

First of all... The echo chamber problem isn't a blog specific thing. The mainstream media has just as much of an echo chamber issue, if not more so.

Take the 24/7 TV news channels for instance. If one covers something, the others follow suit. There are remarkably few stories that are only covered on one station. That isn't because that's the only news out there... It's because of the nature of the environment.

Secondly.. From the traditional media/information studies standpoint, the three key roles of the news media are gatekeeping, coorientation, and agenda setting. Drilling into the problem from that angle yields some perspective.

The Internet mostly solves the gatekeeping problem by creating a more open information marketplace. Rather than a small number of gatekeepers due to the high costs associated with maintaining a media outlet of any kind, we have a ton of people that now have the means to provide information to the public. Idealy, the relevant cruft rises to the top. Or at least the outlets that provide interesting perspective rise to the top.

Also in line with that, the agenda setting role is different now due to the Internet. Media consumers have more of a role in deciding what are important issues. The mainstream news media is clearly paying attention to what people are talking about in the blogs. Hence, a feedback loop exists that was previously limited to letters to the editor and whatnot. We have seen a number of stories that have largely been ignored at first, eventually get the attention of the mainstream media because they have been made a big deal of in the blogs. This is obviously a good thing.

However, the agenda setting role is still screwed up by the fact that there are in fact a large number of people who care about Anna Nicole Smith, who don't really care about any important issues.. Given the whole mix is driven by advertising, rather than public interest, those people play a larger role in defining the agenda then people actually interested in important issues. It is way easier to lump stupid people together and feed them shit, than to tackle complex issues.

The real problem is when it comes to the coorentation role. The book excerpt, as well as the discussion here, clearly reflects that the media has been doing a piss poor job of defining the issues. I think this is the area that needs the most attention right now.