|
|
December 7, 2004
What is the Internet Doing to Political Journalism and its Public?"Participants: about 20-50 informed people, interested in politics and technology, most of them wired to the Net, spread out in a law school classroom that has what is called in the theatre a 'high rake,' trying to figure it out."I will be hosting a session at the Berkman Center’s upcoming conference, (Votes, Bits & Bytes, Dec. 9-11 at Harvard University), which is shaping up as a massively interesting event for me, and others with an interest in what the Internet is doing to our political system. The conference (400 pre-registrants) is organized around four questions. The two most vital are: Has “citizenship” really changed in the online era? Did the web, in fact, affect the 2004 election? My portion is on the third day, Saturday, when the “non-traditional” style takes over. No experts, everyone’s on the panel. One person runs the discussion by interrogating the room. It’s the BloggerCon format, a more “open” style. (Semi-Socratic, a friend of mine calls it.) The Berkman Center debuted it when Dave Winer opened BloggerCon I in Pound Hall at Harvard Law School. So I’m the interrogator for one of these things. It’s among the final sessions— a wrap-up for those who remain. Participants: about 20-50 well informed people, interested in politics and technology, most of them wired to the Net, spread out in a law school classroom (it has what is called in the theatre a “high rake”)— all trying to figure it out. Here’s the description: Saturday, Dec. 11, 4 – 5:30pm, Pound 100 John Palfrey, Executive Director at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, has written to session leaders with a sensible plea: The conference is supposed to be a “skeptical take on the impact of the internet on politics.” We’re supposed to help keep things honest. “We want to ask hard questions that get past the hype and to what’s real in this story — if anything,” Palfrey wrote. “We are interested, to the greatest extent we can, in uncovering, together, the truth about whether the internet really is changing politics, not just in the US but around the world, for the better.” What do you think?
UPDATE, Dec. 11: After two days of conferencing, I have a sense of some of the questions that lie inside the main one: What is the Internet doing to political journalism and its public? This includes:
Posted by Jay Rosen at December 7, 2004 1:34 AM
Comments
" Did the web, in fact, affect the 2004 election?" Well, sure. Even if only as a fund-raising tool and a way of allowing the grassroots to communicate with one another, I don't think that answer could possibly be no. Posted by: Linkmeister at December 7, 2004 2:02 AM | Permalink Citizenship has changed and will continue to change in the online era. Despite TV's hold of the core audience, as time goes by, people will indeed turn to the Internet for supplemental sources or even full news. This participation has two problems in that it can allow "citizens" to isolate themselves in information bubbles with little need to corroborate or followup on a story. This happens quite a great deal on the net and in print journalism, but the speed of the net may cause this problem at a higher magnitude. No one needs to be honest. It's easier to get to the tools of a citizen, but it's not necessarily good for democracy as of yet. The old model was dying though, so I expect some orderly chaos. Like Linkmeister said, even if the effect was just in terms of Internet fundraising, the effect on the election was enormous. Does anyone believe Howard Dean would have gotten as far as he did without the Net? Did the web affect the election? Most definitely. E-mail lists for both campaigns. For Bush voters, it felt like personal contact with the President on some level. Posted by: Steve at December 7, 2004 5:13 AM | Permalink Tell a story? I have so many. Here's a good one I wrote about: "The Dean Campaign was a classic bubble-stock. He was "thinly traded" (no real votes for a very long time). He was hyped by self-interested promoters, having found a new, naive, constituency which could be fleeced (net-heads). He had a gimmick (BLOGS / SOCIAL SOFTWARE, feel the *B*U*Z*Z*!), which was made even stronger for having a kernel of truth (fundraising being more efficient). He tapped into strong emotions (the war). And there was a ready supply of castle-in-the-air builders to tell us all about the New Era (of Regurgitant Pundocracy). All very standard." Posted by: Seth Finkelstein at December 7, 2004 5:20 AM | Permalink Citizens have changed in the past decade, and I agree will continue on this path for some time to come. The internet bubble of the 90's was the begining, until it popped. What didn't pop was the consumers and the technology. Jobs and money were lost, but what wasn't lost was the idea's. Just think, at both parties conventions, bloggers were acredited media memebers for the first time. Their coverage was put under scrutiny, but I imagine so was radio coverage the first time. Howard Dean's campaign still has a blog that I read regularly called Blog for America, and slowly the Republicans are starting to raise money on the internet. It's only right that they come around slower than the Democrats. After all the internet is the most Democratic form of media yet, and it's expanding. As the current generation of college students and techo's grows up and their children learn from even better internet and better technology more and more people, it would seem, will walk away from the mainstream media. They aren't doing a satisfactory job anymore, and more and more people realize it. This is what the internet is supposed to be, a cheap, reliable source for infomration. Let the journey begin Posted by: Danny Angel at December 7, 2004 9:12 PM | Permalink "And the Net is luring more and more respectable journalists to the Net." Me thinks somebody doesn't get it. Posted by: vachon at December 7, 2004 9:15 PM | Permalink Being bored with my reasonably paid but not intellectually stimulating job (in investment banking), I was attracted to on-line forums for discussion, like Orson Scott Card’s Ornery American forum. But forum posts sort of disappear after awhile -- they aren't really mine. Slashdot and Kuro5hin web communities allowed be to keep my own stuff, but were less satisfying. After the 9/11/02 first anniversary, I read all of Peggy Noonan's old columns. And began thinking more about what 9/11 means -- the internal US culture wars between secular fundamentalists and both modern Christians and Christian Fundamentalists; the lack of much modern Islam movement; the need for human rights in Arabia. I got hooked on blogs for the intellectual stimulation. Not just news facts, meanings in the facts. And biased reporting of facts; and biased reporting of bias -- which at least is usually honest about it. A fantastic Michael J Totten FrontPage article: Why Liberals should support Bush's War (see his old blogspot blog for a link) -- made so much sense to me. His blog, and his links, and my own playing at different blog technology (was upset at losing my free Movable Type ), and I really like blogging. One of Covey's Seven Habits of Highly Successful People is: keep a journal. My Blog helps me do that, with my own, personally important intellectual life. Real bad on finances -- I'm looking to move into lower paid teaching so as to afford the time I want to spend on it. I'm also convinced MSM is morally sick, and the Leftist/ Dove side of the Democratic Party is sick. (My own? no longer) Libertarians are a bit sick, too. The moral sickness comes from an unwillingness to confront the crucial government question. When should violence and War be used against evil? The anti-Vietnam War left has failed to accept that they supported Peace and genocide. The Killing Fields reality is what Kerry, and Rather and other news folk (Jay? Jeff Jarvis?) were advocating in 1971, even if he didn't know how bad it would be. When the costs and benefits of one policy are only compared to the benefits of the alternative policy, it's no wonder most choose the benefits only. The Left is consistently dishonest about their comparisons, while usually the pushing the Right to be more honest. With a reduction in the need to bias the truth in order influence the election, I look forward to more attempts at news--MSM, talk radio, AND blogs-- to get to real facts. And I suspect more folk will start understanding that what the infotainment industry is offering too often are "facts" about the future -- which aren't really facts yet, and might not be. But it's the future facts that most folks spend most of their attention on.
Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at December 8, 2004 8:05 AM | Permalink Has "citizenship" really changed in the online era? No. But public education was exposed for its aimlessness and lack of attention to developing tools for thought. Recognizing that, we can help prepare students for citizenship responsibilities that have always been there but poorly exercised. Did the web, in fact, affect the 2004 election? Non-question of the year -- Kind of like, "Did the internet bring down Dan Rather? No. Dan Rather's shortcomings did." What is the Internet doing to political journalism and its public? It introduced Fisking -- Which, in turn, exposed the shortcomings of live candidate debate format. Generals in the next political war will have to be more careful of their bullshit... ah,... their over-generalizations. It has set up an opportunity for the best written positions to be met with the strongest counter-arguments to those positions such that some synthesis can be considered. Over all, the internet caused journalism an unfortunate amount of introspective tail-chasing. Journalist is still an earned accolade. Earned fresh every day. it is a practice, not a profession. Trust is the only thing we have to sell. Hi Jay, I'll be at your session on Saturday. Quick thoughts on your two questions: Has "citizenship" really changed in the online era? OK, it hasn't transformed the basic obligations and privileges of citizenship. But other than that, everything else about citizenship does change in the online era: how we deliberate, how we take action, in short, how we make collective decisions. Did the web, in fact, affect the 2004 election? Wrong question. Politics impacted the web. Partisan forces are figuring out how to squash the democratic potential of the web to maintain control. Instead of real empowerment, they are figuring out ways to divide the citizenry and activate collect credit card donations ("You have the power to take back the presidency: donate now!"). 2004 is the year the empire strikes back. Posted by: Michael Weiksner at December 8, 2004 5:09 PM | Permalink There's something kind of creepy about bloggers having a symposium, and conventions, and making speeches. Not very revolutionary. Looks pretty much like it's just the same old things being rebuilt with new people. And some of the A list bloggers are starting to get a bit big for their britches. You know, throwing around big statements about how they speak for "me" and "us" while they jet around the Bos-Wash corridor and tell us about their "appearances." Looks a lot like New Media might just be Old Media with cooler technology. Is it? Or not? The Internet has affected and will continue to affect the practice of politics. As did the telephone, photocopier, and inexepensive laser printer. I doubt that the advent of any of these provoked a gathering of experts at Harvard Law School. Obviously the Internet surpasses these technologies in enabling cheap one-to-many communication, but it is still just a neutral amalgam of networks and protocols. Much of the Votes, Bits and Bytes agenda and discussion is engaging but diffuse. Hoder's blogging from Iran is courageous and inspiring. How much light does it shed on the role of blogging in the political culture of the U.S.? Bloggers had a major impact on the South Korean election--but that doesn't mean blogging about U.S. politics has the same impact. One can't talk about all of these things in the same sentence. They aren't equivalent. Posted by: David Randall at December 12, 2004 9:00 PM | Permalink Hi, we have a similar weblog community in Hong kong, called chattergarden. www.chattergarden.com. Jay gave us five options during the session and I picked item 3 - a "distinction" that is useful in thinking about this topic. My distinction for evaluating the impact of blogging on anything is always "so far" because the growth of blogging has been so fast over the past two years and the trendline is still up. Blogging is still in the process of becoming so making a definitive statement about the impact of blogging at this point is premature. So..."what is the Internet doing to political journalism and its public SO FAR?" There was some disagreement in the session about whether bloggers were journalists or whether blogs was having an impact on journalism or to what degree. Some people (e.g. Dan Gillmor who was in the session) believe that blogs as citizen media are already transforming all journalism. Some questioned that. My view is that if you don't believe that blogs are having an impact on journalism then just wait and you will be convinced soon enough.
Posted by: Robert Cox at December 13, 2004 6:26 PM | Permalink |
|
Print
