The Internet and Partisanship

Remove all ads!

I'd started typing this out with a detailed, 4 paragraph introduction, but decided to instead pose the question and let the chips fall where they may. As someone who only became truly politically active during the internet age, and seeing the opinion-shaping effects of blogs, self-appointed "citizen journalists," non-establishment/independent news services, and well organized internet-based groups, it really leaves me wondering...

While no one denies that the political landscape is at unprecedented levels of partisan bickering and polarization, is the advent of the internet to blame?*

I'm inclined to think so, but interpret as you will, the phones are open.


*[Reworded for clarity and to correct atrocious grammar on my part. Yikes.] - DR

[ November 01, 2007, 18:46: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

The internet has merely opened another avenue of approach.

The internet serves as a vessel for 'targeted' partisanship, with sites like the Free Republic and Little Green Footballs, to name two particularly silly ones. There they preach to the converted. Of course, there are also liberal sites like that.

Before such partisans were forced to publish their views in small publishing shacks. On the internet they have it cheaper, easier, and faster. That's all. In that sense, the internet has democratised publishing, much like firearms have democratised war. The internet is an equaliser.

But I wouldn't blame the internet. US politics have become more partisan, and that has manifested itself on the internet also. The internet is just a tool after all. That's my take anyway.

 

I don't think the internet is to blame. For that to be true, you'd have to assume that Average Joe actually goes to the internet to read biased, partisan news articles, which I simply don't think is true. In fact, I don't think Average Joe looks up any article at all. Average Joe is on the internet looking at porn, downloading pirated movies, checking out YouTube, and playing WoW. Maybe I'm just being too cynical, but I have a hard time buying that "political interest" makes the list of Top 50 reasons to visit the internet in the U.S.

If anything, I think that talk radio has had the biggest impact on people over the past few years. Average Joe doesn't care to become either informed or misinformed about politics in his free time. But Average Joe DOES have to drive to work every morning, and millions of those Average Joes listen to talk radio while doing so. To the uninformed - and I maintain that average Joe is very uninformed - the likes of Rush Limbaugh makes a pursuasive argument.

 

It is not to blame, by any stretch of the imagination. It may exacerbate existing problems of partisanship by giving people the ability to access even more heavily slanted, patently untrue information if they so choose. OTOH, if they're actually interested in testing their ideas against reality, there's a wealth of information.