January 26, 2004
Internet Democracy
The New York Times had an article on the effect of the Internet on democracy, focusing on the fears of "cyberbalkanization". Some social scientists are concerned that cyberspace, while potentially increasing civic participation, is leading to more extremism. As people choose the sites they visit and the content they consume, they surround themselves with like-minded folks who don't challenge their pre-conceived notions.
First, I was disappointed to see that they didn't have any quotes from people optimistic about the role of the Internet in politics, or any sites, like e.thePeople, that are actually trying to build a public space for respectful dialogue.
But more importantly, as Jack Balkin, a law professor at Yale, points out on his Balkinization blog, the article conflates two different kinds of activities: efforts to organize and motivate like-minded people into acting (like MoveOn.org and the candidate web logs) and ones that strive to provide a place for discussion and debate. These two activities are different, and it's unreasonable to expect to find them in the same place. It speaks to a larger misconception of the Internet that you see fairly often in the mainstream media — the idea that the Internet is monolithic. The beauty of the medium is that a thousand flowers can bloom, some partisan, some pragmatic, some ideological, some objective, some hateful, some spin-ful, some extreme, some high-brow, some low, some professional, some amateur, some reliable....
I, of course, am thankful that my comment section will always challenge me and never let me get complacent about my views.
Posted by richard at January 26, 2004 12:12 AMThe folks at the Times had a bad year authority-wise, what with the Rise of the Blog and all of their own reporting scandals. So of course they're going to start publishing articles telling you that you're going to turn into David Duke or Patty Hearst if you don't stick to newsprint media.
The idea that there can be anything wrong with people finally having an outlet for their opinions even if they're preaching to a hardened choir is completely absurd. I suppose we'd be better "democratized" if we delivered our views solely in "Letters to the Editor" on topics that the Times itself chooses? Oh, Mr. Editor pick my letter, please! This is turf protection at its worst.
Screw 'em. They should just shut up and get back to work on their Sunday crosswords. It's what they do best.
Posted by: Brad A. at January 26, 2004 12:47 PMHey did you guys read the article on digital copyright in the NYT Sat Mag? I want to know how you feel about being labelled the "cyber left"
Posted by: Julia Ott at January 26, 2004 07:05 PM