Are Blogs an Echo Chamber?: Do Political Bloggers Only Read Blogs That They Agree With?
[UPDATED]
Frank Athens of the Washington Posts makes an accusation that one hears often cast against blogging:
"[The most] troubling trait of the Internet [is that] Rather than opening minds, it can close them, thanks to echo-chamber Web sites and blogs. We like to read Web sites and blogs that we agree with and that reinforce our opinions. Aside from the few of you who practice "know your enemy" browsing, how many of you liberals read http://www.nationalreview.com/? How many of you conservatives frequent http://www.thenation.com/?
His implication is that blog consumption is ideologically self-referential: liberals read Daily Kos; conservatives read powerlineblog and so on. And never the twain do meet. (See comment by Jeff Jarvis).
Is this true?
First, Athens' unstated premise is that "neutral platforms" like, say the Washington Post, are superior content providers because they offer an internal marketplace of different, competing ideas, each given equal weight. Well, I'm not sure how many people, left or right, truly believe that the Washington Post, or any television network, delivers, impartial, fair, balanced or objective coverage of the issues of the day. And, as posted here, and commented on by others, partisanship, not objectivity was the norm in the era in which our Founders first safeguarded a free and open press.
Second, it is true that a good deal of research on human cognition supports the premise that we seek out "feedback that fits": our perception, retention, and opinion-evaluations are selective and self-serving.
But as to the content selection behavior of bloggers, the answer is complicated, at least in my experience. For the last three years, I have used the thousands of undergraduates in my "Intro to Mass Media" classes as survey respondents and test subjects for studies of their media use patterns, especially the interplay between their readership and viewership of different media such as, for example, the Internet versus television or of types of publications presented in different media, such as reading newspapers in print versus online.
Here are two major lessons I draw from my research as it pertains to blogging, partisanship and the mainstream media.
1. BLOGS CAN BE PORTALS TO MAINSTREAM MEDIA
Several years ago, I noted an interesting phenomenon that runs contrary to much popular wisdom of the "decline in readership" of newspapers. I would assign students to read political blogs. As you know, a good deal of blog content is commentary on existing news stories; almost always it is the case that even when that commentary is extremely negative, the blogger provides a hyperlink to the original story of the online version of the paper or magazine. Yet, when I would query my students about their readership of newspapers and magazines online, they would claim that they were not consuming them at all or were doing so at the low rates with which we are all familiar. In short, I was able to confirm that, for example, Student A had in fact read, over the past week, several dozen articles from the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, and Newsweek via the blog portal, in her or his mind did not classify that as actually reading a newspaper because, to use the language of Pew Internet studies, their encounters with online periodicals were "inadvertent"--that is, they did not start out by seeking those stories and sources as places to go for information.
2. PARTISAN BLOGS ENCOURAGE READING OF OPPOSING PARTISAN BLOGS
It is true, as I had said, that most political bloggers I know take politics more seriously than do most politicians, political reporters, and pundits and political professionals I know: they care. When I sat on the Board of the American Association of Political Consultants a few years ago, I saw that many political workers, from media consultants to congressional staff, care about issues and ideologies, but most do not adhere to them fanatically. For example, Republican and Democratic political consultants, staffers and politicians will have friends across the fence or the chamber. Many view politics as a game or a business. But no rightblogger I know is pals with a leftblogger. I'm sure there are some ideologically driven political bloggers out there who vilify each other and then grab a brew together at the local pub, but I have never talked to them. For one thing, of course, cybercommunities do not tend to have cross-community mixers. There are plenty of incentives and opportunities for a Republican Congressional staffer and a Democratic party worker to have lunch in Washington, to play tennis, or even to marry: a rightblogger in Des Moines, Iowa and a leftblogger in Manchester, New Hampshire are confined largely to sniping at each other, sometimes viciously, online. That is not to say that dialogue does not exist. The political bloglands offer a marketplace of ideas, but we should keep in mind that the vendors in the stalls don't shake hands and go have drinks after a day of heated competition.
But, again, in reports from my students, they are, in fact, reading enemy blogs in the following ways:
a. Many students report that they do want to hear what "the other side" on an issue has to say, and go to opposing blogs to hear it.
b. Students who have their own political blogs report that they regularly seek out "what the enemy" blogs have to say on controversial issues of the moment.
c. When a leftbloggers attacks a rightblog post, my students, who had started out reading the initial post, go and read its opposing viewpoint.
d. When using google blogsearch for blog views on a topic, my students would find "hits" on many blogs, and go read them regardless of ideology--which they might not know anyway at first from the title for the blog itself.
e. As in newspaper reading, my students tended to under report viewing of opposition blogs--which they admitted in conversation rather than in surveys.
I make no claim that a high level meeting of minds is occurring, but blogging is still evolving and so is its audience. We don't know how blogging will be used for news and opinion interaction a few years from now: a true market place of ideas, or as continual confirmation of one's own prejudices. But as of now, it is simplistic to say that bloggers only read that which with they agree.
See also a good post related to this topic by Rebecca Blood.
Reader Comments (41)
Strong opinions want good company. If a democratically, outspoken, political blogger wants to strengthen his argument, he will look for followers with similar attributes. This is not to say he is unaware of the opposing viewpoints. A good debater is aware of all party affiliations and viewpoints; thus knowing the competitor’s strengths and weakness.
Politicians hold a different degree in undermining the voice of their opponent. “It is nothing personal, just business.” This outlook toward debating while pitching harsh comments back and forth is what allows for face-to-face interaction afterward; which, in my opinion, is more reputable, but can allude to sugar-coating critical information.
Political Bloggers are just that, bloggers. There is no forced face-to-face interaction, so why not speak what is on their minds; therefore a lack of poise and professionalism is obligatory; Thus, alluding to a speech free-for-all, displaying honest and often crude representations. Blogging, however crude, allows for blatant honesty. Becoming closed-mined is not in the hands of the blogger, that is a state in which one allows.
A reputable, accurate blogger will give a hyperlink to other opposing views to enable to public to gain a general knowledge about the subject. Those who say people read blogs they only agree with could very well be accurate, but those people become closed-mined by choice, by not reading and conducting proper research; thus resulting in a lack of understanding all together.
At the same time, the same bloggers would read blogs sharing their opinions also read blogs of differing opinions. The thing that makes having political viewpoints so rewarding is being able to prove someone with different views wrong. In order to find this satisfaction, bloggers must use their knowledge and disprove the views of other bloggers. Therefore, for example, a leftblogger would have to read a rightblogger's blog to present their opinions and views to prove the rightblogger wrong.
I also agree that "blogs can be portals to mianstream media." It is more interesting to read new stories posted on blogs because you can also read the posts of other bloggers. Newspapers are very one-dimensional. When a reader reads a story in the newspaper, they are left with just the story. On the other hand, reading a story on the blogs gives the story more dimensions. The reader is made to think and decide which blogger's opinions they gravitate towards.
Though we may not comment on opposing blogs, we almost always “get the scoop,” obviously, this too is human nature. Whether we admit it or not, most of us practice “know your enemy” browsing. In fact, many involved in politics use this practice frequently. It not only informs them of their opposition’s positions, but also allows them to formulate arguments to the contrary.
commenting on another persons blog opinion may stir up trouble between the members of both issues. therefore it would make sense for political bloggers to keep tabs on what their opponents are talking about while keeping themselves completely seprate
Uninformed blogging does not help to defend on side of the position; it merely reinforces the opinions of those that already agree with your position. If a person feels strongly about one side of an argument and wishes to convert others to that side, studying the “enemy” will help to improve your argument against the other.
Just because this is the internet, people do not change their behaviors, sure, some are a bit more bold than their usual persona in the "real world" but still humanity reigns supreme, and human actions are the same whether on the net or not. We all want to be right, but there is some inkling of emotion inside of us to really know the truth not only what we know as truth, but the real truth.
A blogger can post whatever comment they wish, either positive or negative, and still keep their identity safe. This is useful when, say for instance, a left wing blogger is upset by an act committed by the Republican party, he or she can go to a right wing blog and post anything they want. Although this maybe ethically wrong, its effectiveness is represented by the retaliation of the opposing party. In some cases, this is the only way for bloggers to see what is happening on the other side of the fence. This leads to the gathering of more views similar to that of their own but also views of the opposition. This is done in order to compare and locate flaws and contradictions.
Sometimes there are mutual agreements between the two, but it is rare. What either side fails to see is that no person is one thing. Everybody is many things. For example, one maybe conservative about heroine, cocaine, and XTC but liberal about marijuana.
Another misconception, thanks to blogging, news, radio, and all other forms of media, is that most liberals hate the Iraqi War and that they feel sorry for the people of Iraq. It is not like that at all. Just because one is not for the war does not mean that they are for the other side. It was like that in Vietnam and it is like that now. The opinions of others gets misconstrued in the crossfire of what each side has to say.
In the end, blogging can be a good thing if used to express ones opinion while at the same time seeing what the other half has to say.
As either a conservative or a liberal, you are almost always aware of the views and information that the other party presents. However, I feel that most of the time people don't read too much of the information and views presented by the other party because of the fear that their viewspoints maybe challenged or that the opposing arguement may make some valid points that deep down you might somewhat agree with.
Even so, most people do end up reading some type of blogs from the other side. People look to read the other side to see what the other side has to say. Some people look at the other side to be able to use what that blogger said against him. They turn it around on the blogger to help to further enhance their own opinion. People should read both sides of an argument to find what others believe because you may read something that you never knew about and decide to change sides on an issue.
Even so many bloggers do actually read the other side's arguments. They do this mainly to use it against them to enhance their own opinions. Others though do this to actually be open to alternative solutions to the issues or our neutral and are looking to decide.
To go along with that, my left winged friends watch news that is considered biased on their side (i.e. CNN, The Daily Show) and my right winged friends view the news that appeals to them (i.e. FoxNews). Blogs are just a new form of media that are clearly opinionated; newspapers and televised news are opinionated but claim that they are not.