Is the internet bad for democracy?

[Siddhartha]

I looked up the definition of democracy:

de?moc?ra?cy \di-"ma-kre-se\ noun pl de?moc?ra?cies [MF democratie, fr. LL democratia, fr. Gk demokratia, fr. demos + -kratia -cracy] (1576)
1 a : government by the people; esp : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usu. involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 cap : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people esp. when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

(C)1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

I do not see how the internet is "bad" for democracy. People in the US tend to vote like their parents unless something happens. Events like the Great Depression and the 1960's Civil Rights movement changed voting patterns. I do not see how having access to the same or different political view points would change this reality.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Don't forget the cyber bullying, you see it on P&N all the time.

Someone posts something and a bunch of people attack that person for their views.
It turns into mob rule which is why P&N is very liberal, many of the conservatives got tired of the bashing and moved on or just don't post as much.

Come now, the Mods do appear to play fair. We are given our voice and not denied it. Is that not enough? One would expect to walk into the lion?s den in a forum of youths.

Far from being in a position to complain about it, I think you LIKE the idea of being a conservative on a liberal dominated forum. Being intellectually oppressed seems to be a huge part of the conservative mythos, but obviously that fantasy is a little hard to maintain if you're posting on FreeRepublic...or if you aren't delusional. But whether or not the conservative "oppression" is real (and I personally think it's one of the more ridiculous ideas in modern politics), the fact is that anything that contributes to that mindset is probably welcomed with open arms by some folks.

In a sense, the OP is right. The problem with the Internet, which is also the great thing about the Internet, is the huge variety of voices and situations you can find if you look hard enough. For people seeking a better grasp on reality, it can help. And for people seeking to have their goofy worldview validated, the Internet can do that too. That doesn't always mean surrounding yourself with just people who agree with you...for folks like you, that means seeking out situations you view as adversarial. But it's all the same thing, it's more about perpetuating your fantasy life than in really learning anything. Mental masturbation, if you will.

Unfortunately, that's just how the Internet works. And overall, I think the benefits outweigh the problems.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster
The Internet provides us the opportunity to expose the left-wing nuts who operate and propagate all the garbage on the networks and mainstream media.

If not for the rise of alternative media, people like Dan Rather would have gotten away with their bullshit.

A check on the media is great, but not if it's being provided by "alternative media" that is more biased and has a bigger agenda than the traditional media they are going after. The heroes of the right that exposed the CBS story did so only because it was a chance to bash the "liberal media" and protect the President. If the next big story like that is Fox News going after a Democratic President, I don't expect to hear jack shit from Powerline Blog.

If there is anything wrong with the Internet, it's the absolutely shitty "new media" that's come with it. I'll be the first to say that I think the traditional media has problems, but if our goal is to fix or replace the traditional media with a better media, we're moving in the wrong direction. Every single blog/alternative media source out there (and that goes for BOTH sides) makes Fox News and the Washington Times look like paragons of journalistic quality. When it comes to news, the OP is exactly right...people are rejecting mainstream media (which is fine, they have some serious issues) and replacing it with something that doesn't even resemble journalism. And why? Because reading DailyKos or Powerline is never going to be surprising, you're never going to be faced with an idea you weren't already thinking, you're never going to have to reconsider your position or rethink your views.

And THAT does real damage to democracy. The system is pretty robust, but I think it relies on a well informed and intelligent population, if everyone is intentionally making themselves dumber, that can't be a good thing for democracy.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Pabster
The Internet provides us the opportunity to expose the left-wing nuts who operate and propagate all the garbage on the networks and mainstream media.

If not for the rise of alternative media, people like Dan Rather would have gotten away with their bullshit.

A check on the media is great, but not if it's being provided by "alternative media" that is more biased and has a bigger agenda than the traditional media they are going after. The heroes of the right that exposed the CBS story did so only because it was a chance to bash the "liberal media" and protect the President. If the next big story like that is Fox News going after a Democratic President, I don't expect to hear jack shit from Powerline Blog.

If there is anything wrong with the Internet, it's the absolutely shitty "new media" that's come with it. I'll be the first to say that I think the traditional media has problems, but if our goal is to fix or replace the traditional media with a better media, we're moving in the wrong direction. Every single blog/alternative media source out there (and that goes for BOTH sides) makes Fox News and the Washington Times look like paragons of journalistic quality. When it comes to news, the OP is exactly right...people are rejecting mainstream media (which is fine, they have some serious issues) and replacing it with something that doesn't even resemble journalism. And why? Because reading DailyKos or Powerline is never going to be surprising, you're never going to be faced with an idea you weren't already thinking, you're never going to have to reconsider your position or rethink your views.

And THAT does real damage to democracy. The system is pretty robust, but I think it relies on a well informed and intelligent population, if everyone is intentionally making themselves dumber, that can't be a good thing for democracy.

I disagree with this, but will cite one leading example for now that in my opinion contradicts the claims, the site Salon.

They are a liberal web site who publish quite a bit of non-partisan analysis, a slew of right-wing blog article links (giving them half of the links), and break some major stories.

On occasion, they have defended a view greatly at odds with their readers, such as Farhod Manjoo's well-done articles debunking some of the misplaced attacks on the 2004 election.

There's more to good sites than being things you disagree with. We don't need to spend all day reading the case for a flat earth, a faked moon landing, and that the Clintons are guity or murdering dozens of political opponents. It's ok to read informative things you agree with. In fact, that's the most useful, if you have reasonable views. You learn more by reading the articles on Salon critical of Bush by Glen Greenwald or Juan Cole, for example, than you do by reading the phony defenses - while those have some, much less, use.

The 'both sides such equally' argument is just as wrong as any other error, when the facts don't fit it - and it's more insidiously wrong, in 'sounding fair', when it's wrong.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Pabster
The Internet provides us the opportunity to expose the left-wing nuts who operate and propagate all the garbage on the networks and mainstream media.

If not for the rise of alternative media, people like Dan Rather would have gotten away with their bullshit.

A check on the media is great, but not if it's being provided by "alternative media" that is more biased and has a bigger agenda than the traditional media they are going after. The heroes of the right that exposed the CBS story did so only because it was a chance to bash the "liberal media" and protect the President. If the next big story like that is Fox News going after a Democratic President, I don't expect to hear jack shit from Powerline Blog.

If there is anything wrong with the Internet, it's the absolutely shitty "new media" that's come with it. I'll be the first to say that I think the traditional media has problems, but if our goal is to fix or replace the traditional media with a better media, we're moving in the wrong direction. Every single blog/alternative media source out there (and that goes for BOTH sides) makes Fox News and the Washington Times look like paragons of journalistic quality. When it comes to news, the OP is exactly right...people are rejecting mainstream media (which is fine, they have some serious issues) and replacing it with something that doesn't even resemble journalism. And why? Because reading DailyKos or Powerline is never going to be surprising, you're never going to be faced with an idea you weren't already thinking, you're never going to have to reconsider your position or rethink your views.

And THAT does real damage to democracy. The system is pretty robust, but I think it relies on a well informed and intelligent population, if everyone is intentionally making themselves dumber, that can't be a good thing for democracy.

I disagree with this, but will cite one leading example for now that in my opinion contradicts the claims, the site Salon.

They are a liberal web site who publish quite a bit of non-partisan analysis, a slew of right-wing blog article links (giving them half of the links), and break some major stories.

On occasion, they have defended a view greatly at odds with their readers, such as Farhod Manjoo's well-done articles debunking some of the misplaced attacks on the 2004 election.

There's more to good sites than being things you disagree with. We don't need to spend all day reading the case for a flat earth, a faked moon landing, and that the Clintons are guity or murdering dozens of political opponents. It's ok to read informative things you agree with. In fact, that's the most useful, if you have reasonable views. You learn more by reading the articles on Salon critical of Bush by Glen Greenwald or Juan Cole, for example, than you do by reading the phony defenses - while those have some, much less, use.

The 'both sides such equally' argument is just as wrong as any other error, when the facts don't fit it - and it's more insidiously wrong, in 'sounding fair', when it's wrong.

Salon is obviously not one of the sites I'm talking about, perhaps I was a little hasty in saying ALL alternative media falls into the category of complete shit. But enough of it does, and the parts that do have enough popularity, to be concerning. Given the size of the Internet, I'm not sure how you quantify whether both sides are "equal" in this, but there are certainly plenty examples of useless wankers running blogs on both the right and the left...enough so that it's clearly a problem for all parts of the political spectrum.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Salon is obviously not one of the sites I'm talking about, perhaps I was a little hasty in saying ALL alternative media falls into the category of complete shit. But enough of it does, and the parts that do have enough popularity, to be concerning. Given the size of the Internet, I'm not sure how you quantify whether both sides are "equal" in this, but there are certainly plenty examples of useless wankers running blogs on both the right and the left...enough so that it's clearly a problem for all parts of the political spectrum.

I'm not sure why you continue to tread so carefully, only 'perhaps' agreeing that not every non-MSM site fits the attack of being terribly inaccurate, but the withdrawal of the universal is a step in the right direction. Certainly there are many examples of problematic sites on all sides, just as there are in the MSM.

But I think a fair analysis shows that the liberal sites have a far better record on average of accuracy.

That's not probably feasible to 'prove' in a post here, but I'll say it's my conclusion after reading many with an open-minded approach, and invite others to do the same.

In fact, I'd encourage going to even freerepublic and dailykos now, the two sites you mention, for a random selection of what they have up, and compare the fairness/credibility.

Please, post the results of your analysis. It's nice to add some factual data to the discussion of something so subjective.

 

[Pabster]

I'd encourage you NOT to go to Free Republic or Daily Kooks. I personally prefer to avoid the extremes of either spectrum. (OK, I do read Huffington from time to time 😛 )

 

[Lemon law]

I don't think the internet differs significantly from any other communication means. And after awhile, the viewers themselves develop their own skepticism about the content they are bombarded with. And the viewers become triply skeptical is they have been misled before.

Its somewhat interesting that Pabster brought up Dan Rather when he could have as easily brought up Robert Novak. But oddly enough, both are old line journalists and their prior credibility derived from following journalistic standards like demanding multi source conformation before reporting.

The problem with the internet is that any blogger can say anything leaving junk totally outnumbering higher quality analysis. And thus far, in terms of a mass media, the internet is now the cheapest means to distribute opinions world wide in human history. Cheap does not equal quality. So let the buyer beware.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I don't think the internet differs significantly from any other communication means.

I do. The low cost of publishing on the internet creates great opportunities for the truth to get out when the cost of publishing is a barrier.

Imagine a controversial citizen - there was a time when the answer to 'what did they really say' was answered by looking up whatever the media had chosen to publish on it.

Now, you would very likely be able to look up the quotes from the person themself, who can publish them, and there is a deterrent effect on the MSM discouraging inaccuracy.

Google is a great equalizer - check my post in the Indian thread on the history of that little-known topic, I'd have needed a lot more resources to get the info without the net.

A lot of the more easily-debunked myths are debunked for those who read reasonable sites on the internet.

Compare how long it took for there to be a dialogue against the Vietnam War, with the MSM shaping opinion, than there was with the Iraq war.

In the former, there was a lot of political weighting, as Senators tried closed-door criticisms, as MSM reporters were gradually educated and gradually began to cover critical views, the door opened by Fulbright's Senate Hearings, as opposed to the quick willingness of voices on the internet to reflect dissent, and to debate it.

With Vietnam, Walter Cronkite finally expressing opposition had a huge effect; today, that effect can grow more from the grass roots.

 

[Lemon law]

The Craig thesis-- The low cost of publishing on the internet creates great opportunities for the truth to get out when the cost of publishing is a barrier.

Is a thesis I would like to agree with and partially do. But the same internet that allows the truth to be published also allows the truth to be buried under a mountain of garbage and lies.

And it takes a diligent and intelligent searcher to find descent links on the internet when one can find garbage far faster. The internet is just faster than other conventional mass media.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic
Heh. 2 perfect examples in only 2 posts.

You hacks could argue forever. You're both right which is why you're both wrong, and always will be.

:laugh: :thumbsup:

 

[Vic]

Old George Orwell got it backward. Big Brother isn't watching. He's singing and dancing. He's pulling rabbits out of a hat. Big Brother?s busy holding your attention every moment you're awake. He's making sure you're always distracted. He's making sure you're fully absorbed. He's making sure your imagination withers. Until it's as useful as your appendix. He's making sure your attention is always filled. And this being fed, it's worse than being watched. With the world always filling you, no one has to worry about what's in your mind. With everyone's imagination atrophied, no one will ever be a threat to the world.

-- Chuck Palahniuk in his book, Lullaby

 

[manowar821]

I'm just going to ignore the butt-hurt whiner neo-con supporters here (you know, the ones complaining that they get bullied when infact they're the ones being pricks 24/7) and answer the question plainly.

The internet is GOOD for democracy, if we had democracy.

Any person or "official" who says that free information and anonymity is bad for democracy or security is a despot/fascist supporting pig.

 

[Vic]

Rest assured, we have democracy. And the internet is perfectly fine for it.

The issue brought up in the OP, that of individuals insulating themselves within like-minded groups, is far far older than the internet.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Salon is obviously not one of the sites I'm talking about, perhaps I was a little hasty in saying ALL alternative media falls into the category of complete shit. But enough of it does, and the parts that do have enough popularity, to be concerning. Given the size of the Internet, I'm not sure how you quantify whether both sides are "equal" in this, but there are certainly plenty examples of useless wankers running blogs on both the right and the left...enough so that it's clearly a problem for all parts of the political spectrum.

I'm not sure why you continue to tread so carefully, only 'perhaps' agreeing that not every non-MSM site fits the attack of being terribly inaccurate, but the withdrawal of the universal is a step in the right direction. Certainly there are many examples of problematic sites on all sides, just as there are in the MSM.

But I think a fair analysis shows that the liberal sites have a far better record on average of accuracy.

That's not probably feasible to 'prove' in a post here, but I'll say it's my conclusion after reading many with an open-minded approach, and invite others to do the same.

In fact, I'd encourage going to even freerepublic and dailykos now, the two sites you mention, for a random selection of what they have up, and compare the fairness/credibility.

Please, post the results of your analysis. It's nice to add some factual data to the discussion of something so subjective.

I am not "treading so carefully", that's just how I talk. I would think you would have noticed by now that I tend to use a lot of words to describe what I'm thinking, "perhaps" was more an asthetic choice than anything else...I wouldn't read too much into it. If it makes you happy, I'll say that there ARE decent non-MSM sources out there, that it wasn't fair of me to paint them all with the same brush. I'll even go so far as to say that the liberally biased sites are better than the conservative ones. Obviously that's a bit of a subjective judgement on my part, but one thing I don't like in news coverage, even if it's commentary, is nastiness...and the conservative sites "win" that particular battle hands down.

But it really doesn't matter, we're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. DailyKos might be better than FreeRepublic, but it's not better than the New York Times or the Washington Post or CNN or any of the "MSM" that it's slowly replacing. There are certainly redeeming features of the new media, but on balance, I don't think we're moving in the right direction. In particular, I think the intentional move TOWARDS biased coverage is a terrible idea, even if it's reasonably intelligent commentary. Even the MSM is doing this, and again, it's a step in the wrong direction. Comparing DailyKos and FreeRepublic is like asking which caliber of bullet I'd like to get shot in the leg with. Yes, there are certainly better and worse choices, but overall, I object to the entire premise of the question...I'd prefer NOT to get shot in the leg at all.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Salon is obviously not one of the sites I'm talking about, perhaps I was a little hasty in saying ALL alternative media falls into the category of complete shit. But enough of it does, and the parts that do have enough popularity, to be concerning. Given the size of the Internet, I'm not sure how you quantify whether both sides are "equal" in this, but there are certainly plenty examples of useless wankers running blogs on both the right and the left...enough so that it's clearly a problem for all parts of the political spectrum.

I'm not sure why you continue to tread so carefully, only 'perhaps' agreeing that not every non-MSM site fits the attack of being terribly inaccurate, but the withdrawal of the universal is a step in the right direction. Certainly there are many examples of problematic sites on all sides, just as there are in the MSM.

But I think a fair analysis shows that the liberal sites have a far better record on average of accuracy.

That's not probably feasible to 'prove' in a post here, but I'll say it's my conclusion after reading many with an open-minded approach, and invite others to do the same.

In fact, I'd encourage going to even freerepublic and dailykos now, the two sites you mention, for a random selection of what they have up, and compare the fairness/credibility.

Please, post the results of your analysis. It's nice to add some factual data to the discussion of something so subjective.

I am not "treading so carefully", that's just how I talk. I would think you would have noticed by now that I tend to use a lot of words to describe what I'm thinking, "perhaps" was more an asthetic choice than anything else...I wouldn't read too much into it. If it makes you happy, I'll say that there ARE decent non-MSM sources out there, that it wasn't fair of me to paint them all with the same brush. I'll even go so far as to say that the liberally biased sites are better than the conservative ones. Obviously that's a bit of a subjective judgement on my part, but one thing I don't like in news coverage, even if it's commentary, is nastiness...and the conservative sites "win" that particular battle hands down.

But it really doesn't matter, we're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. DailyKos might be better than FreeRepublic, but it's not better than the New York Times or the Washington Post or CNN or any of the "MSM" that it's slowly replacing. There are certainly redeeming features of the new media, but on balance, I don't think we're moving in the right direction. In particular, I think the intentional move TOWARDS biased coverage is a terrible idea, even if it's reasonably intelligent commentary. Even the MSM is doing this, and again, it's a step in the wrong direction. Comparing DailyKos and FreeRepublic is like asking which caliber of bullet I'd like to get shot in the leg with. Yes, there are certainly better and worse choices, but overall, I object to the entire premise of the question...I'd prefer NOT to get shot in the leg at all.

Excellent post, and I agree completely. Good journalism should be objective, not biased. It should report the news and allow the reader/listener/viewer to form their opinions and conclusions, not force-feed the opinions of their editorial board. In fact, I would argue that these biased media outlets are not journalism at all, but propaganda and entertainment, no matter which "side" they're pushing.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Do you have any credible analysis that backs up the position that the internet caused Bush's election in 2004?

That's the first I have heard that theory.

Really?

Where have you've been?

The Swift Boat campaign began online for example:

The Right Links

Anti-Kerry Websites

Free Republic
"Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!" Free Republic was founded in 1996 by Jim Robinson, a private citizen from Fresno, California. Funding for Free Republic is provided strictly by donations from our membership and readers.


CrushKerry.com
"Patrick Hynes, a political consultant who now lives in the Washington DC area, started Crushkerry.com in January 2004 after John Kerry won the New Hampshire primary. Hynes fled Massachusetts during the Dukakis-Kerry years as a young boy because they had literally made the state unlivable. Since January, Crushkerry.com has grown into a grassroots news and activism site with thousands of members. We have been featured in The Washington Times, The Economist, numerous local newspapers and talk radio shows." Hynes further stated, "Conservative Americans are deeply frustrated. They don't feel like their point-of-view is respected by Big Media. And they don't feel like their point-of-view is given as much credence as other ideologies." [Patrick Hynes, 06/23/04 e-mail]

Kerry Haters
A blog launched on February 28, 2004.


The Official John Kerry Waffle House Page
By Roger R. Estrada.


Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

"SwiftVets.com is a tax exempt non-partisan public advocacy '527' organization consisting of, and limited to, former military officers and enlisted men who served in Vietnam on U.S. Navy 'Swift Boats' or in affiliated commands... Now that Senator John Kerry is the presumptive nominee of his Party for president, numerous questions have been raised concerning Mr. Kerry?s service in Vietnam and concerning his subsequent antiwar activities. Our mission is to provide solid factual information relating to Mr. Kerry?s abbreviated tour of duty as a member of Coastal Division 14 and Coastal Division 11."


Vietnam Vets for the Truth, LLC
In a May 14, 2004 press release CEO Terry Garlock, who served as an Army Cobra helicopter pilot in Vietnam, stated, "Our new VVT organization is not challenging Kerry?s Vietnam service. We are going to tell the good news stories about Vietnam vets at our rally and how America should have welcomed them home with pride and gratitude. We will contrast that truth with the lies told about them by John Kerry.? Larry Bailey, CAPT, USN (Ret.) of Mt. Vernon, VA is President; Garlock, the CEO, is from Peachtree City, GA. This group is organizing a "KERRY LIED...while good men died" rally to be held at the U.S. Capitol on September 12, 2004.


Veterans Against Kerry
"Veterans Against Kerry exists to inform America's voters, especially veterans, that John Kerry is unsuitable to be President of the United States." Provides a bulletin board system forum for members.


Catholics Against Kerry
"Vote Catholic is a small group of lay Catholics who have banded together to encourage other Catholics to "Vote Catholic." John Berns, a political independent from Minnesota founded the group in March 2004. The initial impetus was our outrage over Kerry's shameless abuse of using 'church visits' as photo ops. Despite his lack of political experience, he started a website, CatholicsAgainstKerry.com, and recruited several talented and likeminded individuals.

"Our National Coordinator is Kevin Collins who is an ex-police officer from New York, and is currently working in political research. Mike Pearce, an 8th grade American history teacher from Texas who has been active in Republican politics and pro-life circles, is the Public Relations Coordinator." [John Berns 07/12/04 e-mail]


Sportsmen for Kerry?
"I am sick and tired of political candidates saying and doing whatever is necessary to fool voters who they know they will eventually betray. This is my attempt to get past their words. The candidates will not provide a clear and concise statement. Being on both sides of this issue, along with many others, he [Kerry] is not a man that should be elected dog catcher."


Conservative Media Fund's FlipFlopper.com
"The Conservative Media Fund is a PAC that creates and runs political ads to challenge liberal organizations. Flipflopper.com provides creative, internet, and consulting services." Soft launch in late April 2004. The Conservative Media Fund was founded by by Jim Valentine and Concho Minick. In a May 5, 2004 press release Valentine stated, "We're just a couple of average Joes from Atlanta who are alarmed at the thought of a Kerry Administration. The stakes are too high this year." Minick stated, "This Presidential Election is being hijacked by a small group of liberal elite donating huge amounts of money to left wing 527s. There hasn't been a response from the right to counter their actions." The May 5 release announced "a nationwide contest for TV, radio and print advertisements to best define Senator John Kerry's habit of changing positions on important policy matters."


The Committee for Justice's Kerry's Scary.com
On July 23, 2004 the Committee for Justice (CFJ) rolled out its "Kerry's Scary" project "to call attention to the type of judiciary a President Kerry would appoint, and what effect it would have on the nation." In a press release CFJ Chairman C. Boyden Grey stated, "Given the polarization between the two parties over judges' proper role as pioneers of law and social policy, or neutral arbiter of established law the Kerry's Scary' project is a light-hearted effort to call attention to the senator's judicial philosophy."

The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election: Divided They Blog

The 2004 U.S. Presidential Election was the first Presidential Election in the United States in which blogging played an important role.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Pabster
I'd encourage you NOT to go to Free Republic or Daily Kooks. I personally prefer to avoid the extremes of either spectrum. (OK, I do read Huffington from time to time 😛 )

Exactly. Craig234 is out of his mind if he thinks his "open minded" review of dailykooks and fringeRepublic means jack squat. It certainly doesn't support his contention that "liberal sites have a far better record on average of accuracy". Sheesh.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Exactly. Craig234 is out of his mind if he thinks his "open minded" review of dailykooks and fringeRepublic means jack squat. It certainly doesn't support his contention that "liberal sites have a far better record on average of accuracy". Sheesh.

Yep. I'd say Craig's figures are a bit subjective... :laugh:

Then again, when you're so far to the left that Ted Kennedy appears as an extreme right-winger...

 

[Craig234]

Dave, of course there were anti-Kerry sites, including the nefarious liars 'Swift Boats for Truth' - the statement I made is that I've never heard the claim that on balance, the internet pushed the election to Bush, as there were huge anti-Bush internet activities - Moveon.org just one - that IMO, my impression, had more effect than the right-wing ones.

So, what I can use is not the list of some top right-wing sites, but some credible analysis that on balance, they had so much more impact than the democratic sites as to elect Bush.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Exactly. Craig234 is out of his mind if he thinks his "open minded" review of dailykooks and fringeRepublic means jack squat. It certainly doesn't support his contention that "liberal sites have a far better record on average of accuracy". Sheesh.

Yep. I'd say Craig's figures are a bit subjective... :laugh:

Then again, when you're so far to the left that Ted Kennedy appears as an extreme right-winger...

When you are such a liar that Pinnochio's nose looks like an 'inny' belly button...

CADsortaGUY, not surprisingly, has difficulty reading what's in front of him. You note the absence in his quotes where I said how difficult it is to 'prove' which is much more accurate.

I didn't say that going for a random sampling of each site proves the overall accuracy of each side; I did say it's worth it for anecdotal data collection. Do it enough times, and when you see a pattern, it starts to carry more weight if the difference is very large, just as flipping a coing and having it come up heads 5, 10, 15, 20, then 25 times starts to suggest something funny. The laws of probability do say something about the odds of such random sampling consistently returning on one side many times.

But as expected, the fact-allergic righties didn't bother to go and do any fact checking, to put their assumptions to any test, they did not get the facts. They're not interested.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Dave, of course there were anti-Kerry sites, including the nefarious liars 'Swift Boats for Truth' - the statement I made is that I've never heard the claim that on balance, the internet pushed the election to Bush, as there were huge anti-Bush internet activities - Moveon.org just one - that IMO, my impression, had more effect than the right-wing ones.

Oh come on, if that was true, Kerry would be in the Oval Office now.

In one sentence you admit the Swift Boat crap was "nefarious liars" and then the next sentence say that Moveon.org had "more effect" than the ant-Bush sites.

:roll:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The Craig thesis-- The low cost of publishing on the internet creates great opportunities for the truth to get out when the cost of publishing is a barrier.

Is a thesis I would like to agree with and partially do. But the same internet that allows the truth to be published also allows the truth to be buried under a mountain of garbage and lies.

And it takes a diligent and intelligent searcher to find descent links on the internet when one can find garbage far faster. The internet is just faster than other conventional mass media.

That's the thing, though, because sites can be set up by people and it's possible to go directly to them without waiting through the mountain of lies, it's far better than that.

If you think, as I do, that Glenn Greenwald has some outstanding analysis, you can go to his site and read him, and there's no mountaint of garbage to wade through to get there.

Now, learning about Glenn Greenwald to begin with is an issue, but the topic of opposition has enough interest that the word gets out about good alternative sites. You just heard of one.

Again, when I compare it to the huge ignorance before, and the dominance of the few MSM commentators, things are a lot better IMO. Who would have read Greenwald before? Only if he had a column in a major magazine or some such, other than books, and that's a very small space.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Salon is obviously not one of the sites I'm talking about, perhaps I was a little hasty in saying ALL alternative media falls into the category of complete shit. But enough of it does, and the parts that do have enough popularity, to be concerning. Given the size of the Internet, I'm not sure how you quantify whether both sides are "equal" in this, but there are certainly plenty examples of useless wankers running blogs on both the right and the left...enough so that it's clearly a problem for all parts of the political spectrum.

I'm not sure why you continue to tread so carefully, only 'perhaps' agreeing that not every non-MSM site fits the attack of being terribly inaccurate, but the withdrawal of the universal is a step in the right direction. Certainly there are many examples of problematic sites on all sides, just as there are in the MSM.

But I think a fair analysis shows that the liberal sites have a far better record on average of accuracy.

That's not probably feasible to 'prove' in a post here, but I'll say it's my conclusion after reading many with an open-minded approach, and invite others to do the same.

In fact, I'd encourage going to even freerepublic and dailykos now, the two sites you mention, for a random selection of what they have up, and compare the fairness/credibility.

Please, post the results of your analysis. It's nice to add some factual data to the discussion of something so subjective.

I am not "treading so carefully", that's just how I talk. I would think you would have noticed by now that I tend to use a lot of words to describe what I'm thinking, "perhaps" was more an asthetic choice than anything else...I wouldn't read too much into it. If it makes you happy, I'll say that there ARE decent non-MSM sources out there, that it wasn't fair of me to paint them all with the same brush. I'll even go so far as to say that the liberally biased sites are better than the conservative ones. Obviously that's a bit of a subjective judgement on my part, but one thing I don't like in news coverage, even if it's commentary, is nastiness...and the conservative sites "win" that particular battle hands down.

But it really doesn't matter, we're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. DailyKos might be better than FreeRepublic, but it's not better than the New York Times or the Washington Post or CNN or any of the "MSM" that it's slowly replacing. There are certainly redeeming features of the new media, but on balance, I don't think we're moving in the right direction. In particular, I think the intentional move TOWARDS biased coverage is a terrible idea, even if it's reasonably intelligent commentary. Even the MSM is doing this, and again, it's a step in the wrong direction. Comparing DailyKos and FreeRepublic is like asking which caliber of bullet I'd like to get shot in the leg with. Yes, there are certainly better and worse choices, but overall, I object to the entire premise of the question...I'd prefer NOT to get shot in the leg at all.

I'm sorry, but the outstanding commentary from Glenn Greenwald, David Talbot, Thom Hartmann, Juan Cole, and countless others is *not* akin to being shot in the leg, it's helpful and good information that's largely missing from the MSM. Each has its place, they complement each other. You're almost sounding like you are contradicting yourself to say one moment you acknowledge there are "decent" sites, and the next saying they're like being shot in the leg. Maybe you're only referring to the worse ones, but you didn't say that.

We would have far less good info if we did not have the internet. Yes, it takes a lot of filtering, but that doens't change the fact.

The NY Times and Washington Post continue to be very solid journalistic publications (with more missteps than you might recognize), and the web adds a lot of good analyis, and even reporting. For just one of countless examples, Salon recently published the first interview with a man who had been through the extraordinary rendition prisons - did you see than in the MSM? Salon published more Abu GhraiB photos than any MSM outlet.

A strong skepticism about the content is a good idea, but there's a lot that is valuable content, as you seemed to start to acknowledge when not calling it being shot in the leg.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Exactly. Craig234 is out of his mind if he thinks his "open minded" review of dailykooks and fringeRepublic means jack squat. It certainly doesn't support his contention that "liberal sites have a far better record on average of accuracy". Sheesh.

Yep. I'd say Craig's figures are a bit subjective... :laugh:

Then again, when you're so far to the left that Ted Kennedy appears as an extreme right-winger...

When you are such a liar that Pinnochio's nose looks like an 'inny' belly button...

CADsortaGUY, not surprisingly, has difficulty reading what's in front of him. You note the absence in his quotes where I said how difficult it is to 'prove' which is much more accurate.

I didn't say that going for a random sampling of each site proves the overall accuracy of each side; I did say it's worth it for anecdotal data collection. Do it enough times, and when you see a pattern, it starts to carry more weight if the difference is very large, just as flipping a coing and having it come up heads 5, 10, 15, 20, then 25 times starts to suggest something funny. The laws of probability do say something about the odds of such random sampling consistently returning on one side many times.

But as expected, the fact-allergic righties didn't bother to go and do any fact checking, to put their assumptions to any test, they did not get the facts. They're not interested.

I read your attempt at cover but it doesn't wash. If you can't prove it then why even try to make that claim? It's utterly meaningless especially when you talk about the 2 "extremes" as if they are representative of the totality of each "side".

Using your model - I might make the statement that there are more irrational leftist sites than rabid right. But I can't prove it...
:roll: