Has the Blogosphere Become HyperPartisan?
Today Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum both strike a note of disappointment over the disappearance of an intellectual middle ground in the blogosphere. They recall an earlier, happier time when bloggers like themselves had a freer range of play in policy debates. They're right, of course. It was only a few years ago when Drum and Marshall on the middle left could have something like a conversation with Sullivan and Instapundit on the right. Now when they reference across the aisle at all it's to play gotcha. They think that the Bush years produced this, but I think it was more specifically the election of 2004. By election day, left and right networks of blogs had become pretty self-enclosed.
Is there anyone to blame for this? I don't think so. In fact, it replicates the development of the political press in the first half of the nineteenth century, though in somewhat accelerated fashion. I've commented on this before. Both the technology and the authorial styles of blogging are very similar to nineteenth century partisan newspapers, which, by the end of the 1820s, had become hyper-partisan. The difference between the two situations is that blogging has mainstream journalism existing alongside it, while nineteenth century partisan newspapering WAS mainstream journalism. This only means that the partisanism of the blogosphere is not as momentous, and in fact could be a lot more extreme without justifying real alarm.
Hyperpartisanism in the nineteenth century DID justify real alarm. Left and right together beat up on the extremes, and did what they could to promote the violent suppression of such exotic movements as abolitionism, feminism, and socialism. Read what mainstream newspapers had to say about antislavery activists, or better yet about African-Americans, and it will knock you for a loop.
Today's blogosphere alarmism is about the power of the extremes. I'm not worried about that. It would be nice if the blogosphere had continued to model an open and somewhat nonpartisan arena of deliberation. But too much gravity pulled the other way. I worry about the forces in public discourse that make it harder to argue unpopular truths. I don't think the blogosphere is one of them. Here's a nice test that today's headlines offer. Who in US politics has openly criticized US support for Israel's attacks on Lebanon? Which Senators and Representatives have staked out a position on the middle east that a neutral observer could call unfriendly to Israel? Who, for instance, has called for freezing US funds until Israel ceases to bomb targets that are not clearly military? I'm unaware of any. Now, personally, I wouldn't promote such a position, but I would say that it should not be outside the bounds of public discourse. And it isn't in the blogosphere. But it is in Congress. So what does this tell us?
Today Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum both strike a note of disappointment over the disappearance of an intellectual middle ground in the blogosphere. They recall an earlier, happier time when bloggers like themselves had a freer range of play in policy debates. They're right, of course. It was only a few years ago when Drum and Marshall on the middle left could have something like a conversation with Sullivan and Instapundit on the right. Now when they reference across the aisle at all it's to play gotcha. They think that the Bush years produced this, but I think it was more specifically the election of 2004. By election day, left and right networks of blogs had become pretty self-enclosed.
Is there anyone to blame for this? I don't think so. In fact, it replicates the development of the political press in the first half of the nineteenth century, though in somewhat accelerated fashion. I've commented on this before. Both the technology and the authorial styles of blogging are very similar to nineteenth century partisan newspapers, which, by the end of the 1820s, had become hyper-partisan. The difference between the two situations is that blogging has mainstream journalism existing alongside it, while nineteenth century partisan newspapering WAS mainstream journalism. This only means that the partisanism of the blogosphere is not as momentous, and in fact could be a lot more extreme without justifying real alarm.
Hyperpartisanism in the nineteenth century DID justify real alarm. Left and right together beat up on the extremes, and did what they could to promote the violent suppression of such exotic movements as abolitionism, feminism, and socialism. Read what mainstream newspapers had to say about antislavery activists, or better yet about African-Americans, and it will knock you for a loop.
Today's blogosphere alarmism is about the power of the extremes. I'm not worried about that. It would be nice if the blogosphere had continued to model an open and somewhat nonpartisan arena of deliberation. But too much gravity pulled the other way. I worry about the forces in public discourse that make it harder to argue unpopular truths. I don't think the blogosphere is one of them. Here's a nice test that today's headlines offer. Who in US politics has openly criticized US support for Israel's attacks on Lebanon? Which Senators and Representatives have staked out a position on the middle east that a neutral observer could call unfriendly to Israel? Who, for instance, has called for freezing US funds until Israel ceases to bomb targets that are not clearly military? I'm unaware of any. Now, personally, I wouldn't promote such a position, but I would say that it should not be outside the bounds of public discourse. And it isn't in the blogosphere. But it is in Congress. So what does this tell us?
posted by jnerone at 1:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home