Media Myopia--More News Is Not Necessarily Good News

[kaitykaity]

((Basically saying partisan media will destroy democracy.))

http://nytimes.com/2004/07/11/weekinreview/11kohu.html?pagewanted=print&position=

Attitudes will become more based on partisanship and less on the specifics of the issues," he said, adding that "opinions about Iraq show a far larger partisan divide than for any war in the modern era."

Social observers have fretted about information segregation for years. Cass R. Sunstein, a professor of law at the University of Chicago, argued in his 2001 book "Republic.com" that the Internet's ability to provide personalized news - to permit users to filter out those things they don't care about - posed a threat to democracy itself.

Democracy, he argued, depends in part on people's being exposed to information they would not necessarily have chosen for themselves. So, too, might the concept of gut rationality be endangered in a filtered world, where people see only what they want to see, hear only what they want to hear, read only what they want to read.

Still, perhaps all is not lost.

In his new book, "The Wisdom of Crowds," James Surowiecki argues eloquently that "under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent, often smarter than the smartest people in them." That's because a diversity of experience, opinion and knowledge can render the whole greater than the sum of its parts. Whether a more partisan news environment undermines or enhances the cognitive diversity of American culture - or diminishes the "gut rationality" of the public - remains to be seen.

"The public's judgment has been pretty good over the past 75 years, when we pretended that we didn't have a partisan media," said Maxine Isaacs, a lecturer at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. "Everyone knew that we did. It's now just more overt."

[tom_paine]

1. The Wisdom of Craowds? Groups are smarter than people?

My ass!

Sort of explains Nazi Germany, doesn't it?

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. That is the idea behind juries and democracy

so it's not that outrageous, or new.

[tom_paine]

10. Good point.

Not much else to say besides that.

You got me.

:spank:

[ixion]

12. that was my thinking as well

crowds exhibit only rudimentary intelligence at best.

This argument is flawed from the outset, IMO.

[myopic4141]

2. Myopia.

Myopia is nearsightedness, not blinder restricted vision. Those afflicted with myopia cannot see very far forward whereas tunnel vision is the malady of the very narrowly focused. The media has tunnel vision, not myopia for they do not see what is on the periphery; therefore, ignore it. The primary purpose of the media is to inform, not project; but, being so narrowly focused, even those who project get it wrong. They get the projections wrong from the tunnel vision aspect of information gathering; therefore, even poor projectionism is from tunnel vision and not myopia.

[kaitykaity]

3. You know, I didn't hear all of this breast beating about

the evils of partisan media when the American Spectator/
Mellon Scaife crowd were doing their level best to destroy
Clinton.

It's only since we decided to form our own media to counter
the corporate whores that there's a problem?

Bwahahahahahahahahaha.

[myopic4141]

5. Those who gave during the Clinton years

could not receive very well in the Shrubby years. Shows how thin skinned they are and how thick skinned we are that we can take more than they can give; but, that they take less than we can give. We are the stronger by far. As to partisan media, it has always been around; however, the affliction should be properly diagnosed rather than mislabeled.

[kaitykaity]

6. And I for one have been ready to give Bushie the

exact same treatment as Clinton got, and it has pissed
me off to no end that Bush has gotten off scot free
with EVERYTHING.

IMHO there is no problem. We were just a little late
getting started, that's all.

[tom_paine]

11. Exactly. The customary Orwellianism of Totalitarianism

This only became a factor when the Imperial Family Enemies began to counter an already well esatblished Bushevik party-Loyal Sub-Media.

And democracy in Amerika is likely dead already, no thanks in small part to the NY Whore Times, in spite of the fact that it is porbably the best of a bad lot.

God, I want to be FREE again with a FREE PRESS to read and look at.

Not anytime soon in Imperial Amerika. Probably NEVER.

[Miss Authoritiva]

7. Is everything a threat to democracy these days?

"Sunstein...argued...that the Internet's ability to provide personalized news - to permit users to filter out those things they don't care about - posed a threat to democracy itself."

Please -- people self-select and filter all the time. The internet doesn't. The great thing about the internet is that -- for those who are actively seeking -- it makes it so much easier to get news and information from a wide range of sources and from a wide range of countries.

The internet doesn't kill democracies, people do.

[myopic4141]

9. The only threat to democracy is democracy itself.

The only democracy that permits liberty is "liberal democracy" or more commonly referred to as "constitutional democracy". A pure democracy will always lead to the reduction of liberties for the minority within its society; therefore, a limiting mechanism must be installed (such as a constitution) to protect the minority. That is the system of government this nation was founded under, not absolute majority rules as espoused by the Conservatives.
As to the internet, Toffler, in his book "Future Shock" left out one very important aspect in his description of the integration of the internet within society. That aspect is that the internet physically isolates individuals making it easier to ignore the civilities found in societal interactions. Discussions have taken on a more hostile tone because the lack of civility is no longer punished as it once was. While great waves of information can be accessed, loss of civility has been the price.

[Miss Authoritiva]

13. Nasty talk makes for great infogandatainment.

"Discussions have taken on a more hostile tone because the lack of civility is no longer punished as it once was."

Absolutely agree: As to the mainstream media, much of what is presented as political discussion is not. It may be political, but it's not discussion. Three people shouting their respective talking points simultaneously via satellite hookups to an unprepared moderator in a bunker-like studio does not qualify. Worse yet, hostile tones and ad hominem attacks are rewarded with frequent bookings, growing celebrity, newspaper columns, book deals, and maybe an eponymous show of one's own.

But all of this was happening before the internet took hold and would have happened without the internet. I remember William Buckley and Gore Vidal and Norman Mailer getting absolutely nasty with each other back in the days of black-and-white television. And Anne Coulter is a byproduct of cable television, not the web. You're right: lack of civility in political discussions is no longer punished as it once was. In fact, it's actively encouraged and generously rewarded because it makes for great infogandatainment--the holy grail of cheap programming.

"While great waves of information can be accessed, loss of civility has been the price."

Uncertain about this: I'm not so sure about the internet's direct and significant contribution to the loss. And I am even more uncertain about the level of civility that America started with!

[myopic4141]

14. The internet contribution.

Toffler's book was written in the late 70's or early 80's which gives an idea of how far back the influence of the internet began to be noticed even though it was not yet part of common every day life nor was it called the internet. In the early stages of introduction, sociologists were already studying the effects of telecommunications on society and how individuals would no longer have to meet in large groups physically in regards to business activities. Even then, there was little research into the isolation component of the direction and how it affected personal interactions. Equally so was the lack of research about the effects from isolationism within social interactions beyond business. Most likely, it was felt that non business social interactions would continue; however, the proposed consequences of isolation on a grand scale was addressed in Science Fiction stories (a source for philosophizing on extremes in social behavior as related to science).
While discourse before the introduction of telecommunications was harsh, there was still a measure of civility expected due to the direct interfacing at the time of discourse. As telecommunications grew in usage, the discourse became harsher and harsher as elements became more isolated from each other. The internet, while not the sole source, greatly accelerated the process by enhancing the isolation from consequences of bad behavior. With more and more young people interfacing between the internet, the less and less they have to deal with the consequences at an early stage of their life when such behavior should be learned. This will carried over into adult life.
Both cable television and the internet have an isolation aspect. Much of the intercommunications between the participants in cable talk shows is via the internet. For example, I can chat live with some individuals in Scotland from my computer in Washington AC via video, audio, and/or typing over the internet. With many of the programs, there can be feedback via the internet almost immediately with what is being seen over the cable. Eventually, the two will be merged and then we can see some real uncivil behavior at work.

[Martin Eden]

8. What drives me crazy

is when they report "both sides" without actually giving any relevant information.

I was watching CNN the other night, and lost my temper. There was a Senate brouhaha over some stalled Homeland Security legislation. They showed a clip of Hillary accusing the Repubs of playing politics with national security, then a Repub rebuttal along the same lines.

It amounted to nothing more than "he says, she says," because they provided absolutely no background information or anything to assist an interested objective observor in determining the facts or merits of the issue. It was totally worthless -- worse than worthless actually, because it was a waste of my time and continued to lower the standards of what currently masquerades as journalism.

My favorite quote about this kind of reporting comes from Paul Krugman:

If Bush said the world was flat, the news analysis the next day would read: "shape of Earth -- views differ."