Tuned In, Plugged In, and In The Know
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (40) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
With apologies to Dan McLaughlin, in case he was intending to blog on this and here I am beating him to it, he made a good point in email this morning that too have noticed.
And it goes right back to something Mickey Kaus wrote about last week.
But there's a second way to divide the electorate that asks how the voters inform themselves. Do they rely on the traditional Mainstream Media (MSM), or do they get their political information from the Web, from cable news, from the tabloids, etc. This division may have once seemed unimportant, but it doesn't anymore--its seriousness is suggested by the MSM's impressive resistance to stories bubbling up from the blogs and the tabs that don't meet MSM standards (putting aside whether you regard those standards as high or merely idiosyncratic). "Rielle Hunter"--the woman whom the National Enquirer alleges was John Edwards' mistress--was the top-searched name on the MSN site at one point Thursday, I'm told. Meanwhile, in the traditional mainstream press, 'Rielle Hunter" was mentioned only ... well, zero times.Of the two ways to divide the electorate, the second is arguably more important. After all, even those who don't follow politics, will eventually inform themselves before the election.** But if the MSM/Web barrier remains as robust as it's been, those who inform themselves from the MSM will find out something different, when they finally tune in, than those who go to the Web and learn both the news and what might be called the "undernews."
Dan and I have both noticed this in conversations with friends.
Those friends of mine who are "web heavy" are aware of Fred Thompson's campaign, think he has a shot (and are mostly on board his campaign), and understand the media game being played. Those who only get their news from the drive-bys have become largely dismissive of the Thompson campaign as not viable.
In the same way, friends who get their news from he drive-bys don't know anything about Ron Paul and just assume there are fringe nutters putting up Ron Paul signs all over the country-side. Those who get their news online have realized that in addition to the fringe nutters organizing inside the asylum for Ron Paul, there is a healthy undercurrent of support for Paul out there among mainstream libertarian oriented and anti-war oriented voters.
Until plugged in America becomes dominate over tuned in America, the political blogosphere is going to have influence in shaping the message, but will not really be able to set the narrative without help. That's not new, but it is reinforced even this year when the "rise of the blogs" were supposed to be the undoing of the drive-bys.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | The Final Pitches — Thompson at bat — Comments (16) »
Tuned In, Plugged In, and In The Know 40 Comments (0 topical, 40 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
johnt, I don't think the public are morons, I just don't think they want to take the time to sit down in front of a computer to check out the blogs. It's not just a one time thing, either. It requires the Internet to be a part of your daily life. I know lots of very educated, professional people who only use the Internet for email and getting directions to businesses.
Visit The Scratching Post!
I see a public that
--has an obscene fascination with pop culture, tabloid news, and 'reality' TV.
--is convinced that America has been mired in a terrible economy for the last 7 years.
--believes that a culture of corruption surrounds the Republicans, and not the Democrats.
You know what I call the public?
STOOOOOOOOOPID
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
A little late, but I hope you had a Merry Christmas, and have a great New Years Eve, all the best in '08.
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
Hey, Merry Christmas to you and all your loved ones too, my friend. Hope the very best for you guys.
Oh, by the way, I wrote a little tribute to you the other day, you must have missed it : it's here
Be sure to read the context though -- the blog was by tadams1138, and also had tributes by Moe, Thomas, Darin H, and Joli. You should try the link and write one yourself.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
later on. I'm trying to decide if I should resolve to stop calling other bloggers 'Nitwits'.. tough decision.
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
I'm trying to think of a softer, kinder term for America-hating leftist commie gasbags -- and I'm referring to the national Democrats and Treason Media, this is not some snide sideways shot at some of our less conservative brethren on our side of the chasm.
So far, got nuthin'.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
as long as I have, you won't think nearly so highly of the "public".
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Your response is debatable in a few important ways.
First, while it assumes that one can only get alternative news through the internet it mistakenly assumes that very intelligent well educated people cannot see through, read, and discover blatant bias in the MSM. I was rather green in years in the 1964 election but it didn't take Sherlock Holmes to spot who the media was favoring and their distaste for Goldwater. The type of person you describe may be what you say but he either carries his ideological baggage with him [ therefore still qualifying as a ideological moron], or he's not paying the sort of attention a involved citizen should [therefore a political & civic moron, what the Greeks called an idiote}.
Second, and to cover the remaining ground quickly, morons exist !!
Your heart is in the right place but you give credit to a portion of the American electorate that is too kind.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
I followed all the links and didn't find any statistical data to give numbers to this theory.
This is the first American Presidential election in history with no incumbents, a wide swathe of candidates in each party, and the Internet installed in a solid majority of people's homes across the country. It's a chaotic race because of that; both parties are trying to figure out how to deal with it.
Generally I agree with you, though. I think Thompson has been badly served by the MSM; I'm very enthusiastic about him as a candidate because of what I know about him from this blog and elsewhere.
Ron Paul is a similar story but in the opposite sense. If I hadn't gone to St. Anselm in New Hampshire and seen for myself what kind of supporters he's attracting while reporting for this blog and HinzSight/TMR, I would have been completely ignorant based on his coverage in the MSM. Meeting Jason Bermas face-to-face has a way of letting you know exactly who Ron Paul was gathering a lot of his early support from, and it was solidly 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
The Internet is a fantastic tool but again, we have to try to keep the quality of the fact-checking and analysis high in order to provide a good resource for readers. It's tough in the final four days leading up to a caucus to completely absolve oneself of bias, and I think a lot of people have just given up on that completely in the "heat of the moment."
That's not great, because it risks turning the blogosphere into a kind of Peanut Gallery.
In all of our posts, we should try to be, if not completely fair and balanced, at least circumspect. We need to do that to reduce the "signal to noise" ratio of the blogosphere and the nontraditional media. Only if the blogosphere can become a reliable source for good information will more people stick with it over the long term: otherwise the packaged alternatives are much too well-established and slick to be easily displaced.
I especially think that's true now that RedState is a sister publication of Human Events. Anyone can start a blog and pound out thousands of variously and arbitrarily irresponsible comments and "analysis" but really I have always seen RedState's mission at least partially as becoming a credible source of Republican/Conserative information and analysis in the blogosphere. And I know you and Thomas and poor Clayton have had to deal on a daily basis with the relentless and occasionally comical attempts to discredit it in that quest.
Which is why RedState needs an annual Spiked Pipe™ award, I think. :)
... like any tool, it is ethically neutral, and its product is greatly dependent upon the abilities of the user and the quality of the raw material against which it is applied.
Jeremiah 17:9.
There are really no good metrics yet as to which blogs or which commentators are more trustworthy than others; all of that is still a matter more of conjecture than analysis.
I know that's going to change after this election. People with post-doctoral degrees in media studies are going to peel away this election one layer at a time and write a lot of papers on the influence of the Internet. Like anything else, they'll come up with some good recommendations and their biases will be present in their analysis as well.
At this point there's a lot of "gut feeling" involved in deciding which blogs are more trustworthy than others. Sheer numbers don't mean anything except to clickthrough advertisers.
The Internet is "disruptive" in that sense just as it has been disruptive to a lot of other top-down traditional organizations. It's a big experiment, and nowhere is the experiment more important than this election.
Regardless of the outcome, I can see a thousand Ph.D. dissertations being written about the blogosphere and its impact on this election, simply because it's the first one of its kind. It's the First Example.
It will always be the quality of the material, the timeliness and the relevance.
Look, Harper's Magazine has a total subscribed circulation of less than a quarter million people. It's a very, very liberal-leftist publication: I used to subscribe to it. It relies for its survival on the fact that the people who read it consider its stories to be the most well-written and penetrating and sometimes entertaining articles they can find. Even though Harper's is a lefty publication, it has a history, and it is produced according to high standards of quality given its audience.
It's the same thing in the blogosphere. There's no shame involved having the #3 or #4 "circulation" or "mindshare" or "eyeball share" in the blogoshperic world -- the question is whether or not those words are reaching people who are capable of making informed decisions about them, and what their influence is.
That's why I've always been proud to tell people I'm a RedStater.
I was going to write something along the same lines. I think this campaign shows the current weakness of the blogosphere, but its growing strength. The candidates polling at the top for the Republicans, Huckabee and Romney, are probably the two weakest when it comes to blogger support. We just don't have a big pull...yet. Four years from now, I think it will be very different.
Visit The Scratching Post!
can still, sadly, have impact and shape views, despite what the blogs do. I loved how the blogs/cable news/etc. helped bring about the Swiftvets in 2004 and were able to tear apart the 60 Minutes TANG story and the bogus exit polls on election day, but they have also had it handed to them by the MSM.
Example: Katrina, the 2006 Election and Iraq leading up to the election. All vestiges of objectivity were discarded in those three events, with the bias going to the left side (of course), and blogs, while pounding out news and facts to counteract the MSM, were unable to break through the Drive By wall.
Of course, one problem the conservative side had while dealing with those thress tories was that we were not unified as well as in 2004. At the time of the events I listed, we were fighting over Miers, Dubai, Pork Spending, Immigration, etc., while the Mediacrats were unified.
Who knows how the split in media consumption will impact 2008, but a unified right side of the blogosphere is required to at least have a chance to break through the wall like were able to do in 2004.
Just to toss out a number, apparently the average age of network evening news viewers is greater than 60. Perhaps the best confirmation of that is the things that are advertised during said broadcasts. Just make a mental note of the adverts the next time you catch the "evening news" and methinks you'll get the drift....
.. to use a computer too.
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
Avg. reader is about 55 yrs. old.
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
The MSM has a full firewall in place as a last act of preservation. They are hoping they can ride the internet/blog thing out and survive.
The only question is in the numbers. The newspapers are not going to survive it and are already being forced to change due to advertiser revenue decline being so sharp.
The major networks have been in decline but are hanging on. However, I thing that due to the writers strike, they are finding out that a lot of shows are just not missed and viewers are going elsewhere without a peep. That is why they are bringing back the shows without writers. They have too before the advertisers walk too.
It is only a matter of time in my opinion. The newspapers are only the beginning. It is just a question of where the tipping point is and knowing what will cause it to be discovered.
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
I don't know how many of you read US Today, but they had a recap of the Presidential hopefuls "last pitch" to the Iowa voters in their politics section. Missing from the Republican side (who actually has a shot in Iowa) - Fred Thompson.
According to RCP, Fred pretty much ties with McCain for 3rd place in IA polls. But of course USA Today will dutifully ignore him.
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
consequences:
"To hear their final arguments, USA TODAY sought interviews with the eight candidates who have double-digit support in the latest national USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. The three Democrats and four of the Republicans accepted. Former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson, a Republican, declined."
If he isn't even willing to be interviewed, then he shouldn't expect coverage in an article that is based on interviews with the candidates. I'm sorry that your candidate doesn't want it as bad as you. I am. It is time to move on.
It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.
- Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792
skimming through newspaper articles, while faster, sometimes leads to "egg-on-face" syndrome. Consider me scrambled.
Interesting writeup, Erick. As I Google'd around on the topic, I found this Pew survey: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=319
Fascinating results. But with respect to your diary, I think Pew gets this one wrong:
People inevitably must learn most of what they know about current events and political figures from the news media, since few have any direct way to obtain this information.
I think the nature of the Internet and blogosphere has made it much easier for people to obtain information "first-hand," as opposed to getting it from traditional media sources. Pew does not seem to infer cause/effect between what sources were cited in their survey and the knowledge level of the responders; one could (incorrectly) assume that "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" are contributing significantly to the current events knowledge of their viewers...and they would be wrong (IMHO). One thing they do note is that those who scored highest "use more news sources" than those who do not.
I would really like to see some sort of objective analysis of the effectiveness of the Internet delivery channel in building knowledge of the electorate, beyond "politics junkies" like those of us who darken the halls of RedState.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
in the political sphere is that politicians and the Parties pander to them. I've written here before, e.g., http://www.redstate.com/blogs/achance/2007/may/12/a_proposal_for_08_whac... here and in other blogs about government operations, about this. And even we smart, sophistocated observers here are suckers for it, because we all hang on what happened on the Sunday shows and even as I write this Fox is on in the background, and Fox is only the best of a bad lot.
It should be an article of faith that Republicans do not make their news in DC, NY, or LA, they make it in their district and state. No press releases, no press conferences, no face time, no nothing for the MSM. NO Republican is going to get any votes in DC, NY, or LA nor any support from media based in those places. I think FDT has taken at least tentative steps towards running his campaign this way. Any smart Republican should work to make Beltway reporters learn to think that a Holiday Inn Express is a luxury hotel and a Bombardier is a big airplane.
And if one wanted to really change things, they can do as my State has done and forbid Congressional fundraising while Congress is in session or at least ban fundraising in the District of Columbia while Congress is in session. That would have two salutory effects; it would make sessions shorter and it would make members spend more time in their districts.
In Vino Veritas
by our courts and we have the same 1st Am. language as the US Constitution. The law requires that a candidate declare his campaign. The ban is on a campaign or candidate accepting contributions while the Legislature is in session. 'Course, you do have to enforce it and the law didn't stop quite a few legislators from accepting contributions/bribes during the session and spending some quality time with the FBI and the Bureau of Prisons for their trouble.
In Vino Veritas
would anyone like to speculate about how the blogs reflect the leanings of each party?
I don't spend a lot of time at liberal blogs, but my limited experience shows their candidate preferences are pretty much divided like the polls show the Democratic party. Obama is the emotional favorite, Hillary is picked to win, and has the most backing and money needed to defeat the Republicans, and Edwards has a following, for reasons no one can determine. But the split in the blogs is not so different from the spit in party.
The Republicans don't show that same split. Each of the online polls that I have seen show a leaning to Thompson that is not reflected in the national polls. I suspect an NRO poll would be pro-romney, but NRO is a magazine first and a blog second. It has declared it's preference, so a pro-Romney poll would be expected. As would a pro-Romney poll at Hugh Hewitt. (I think a Hewitt poll would have a single choice, like Romney.)
But polls at non-Fredstate conservative sites like Little Green Footballs, or Michelle Malkin, show a definite Thompson trend that does not match the national polls. It seems like most conservative blogs are pro-Thompson. Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, and McCain all take major hits on significant issues like immigration at these sites. When Thompson is attacked, it is rarely issue-related, but has more to do with fire, and earth, and wind, and trophy wives, and so on. Policy, not so much.
(Please don't point out that internet polls are completely unreliable. I know that. Please don't accuse Fredbots of stacking the polls a la the followers of Ron Paul. They don't do that. And yes, I am a Fred supporter. As, apparently, are most conservative blogs. So what up with that?)
Why the disconnect between the national polls and the conservative blogs?
ideological than the norm. IIRC, I read somewhere that Edwards was the preference of the DKos crowd - a guy who is probably the most ideologically left of the Dem crowd. Similarly, Thompson would be considered by most to be the most ideologically conservative of the GOP candidates. We in the blogosphere think through things more thoroughly, whereas polls of the general public reflect more on factors like name recognition, looks (straight teeth, wrinkles, etc.), and "likability" (does he sound "nice" in his interviews?)
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
sought out by FDT, like RS. He posts here, we are in tune with his views and plans, whereas the public from which polls are taken may not have heard from FDT....
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
Good post. I don't know if your analysis is correct or not, since we really have no data. What I've found as I've spoken with people is that the average voter is incredibly ignorant of the candidates, their positions, etc. I've found that those who are "informed" on politics aren't necessarily into the blogoshpere, they have just taken the time to learn more from a variety of sources.
There is definitely something going on with your particular site, which is also an interesting phenomenon. You have several informed, educated, articulate, bloggers who have come together here and yet somehow there has been an unusual "group think" around Fred Thompson - likely due to his blogging on this site. Some (a vocal minority) are so hostile towards any criticism towards Fred that it is similar to Ron Paul supporters. I think because of this, this site (seeing this site as a collection of all it's posts, not the owners) has become unable to see how flawed Fred's campaign is and when they complaign and call names at someone criticicizing Fred, there are automatically numerous others willing to do the same. I don't think Fred's campaign is suffering from media bias, except for that which he has earned due to his campaigns poor media relations. I don't think it is a phenomenon related to the uninformed voter, versus the blogger. It actually seems to go both ways for now, with media presenting only one side and bloggers only presenting another - neither are totally accurate. The truth is in the middele and it isn't looking good for Fred.
(As evidence of my point, see the hostile reactions to this post that will surely come. Maybe I will just email you instead next time. Thanks, David.)
* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”
Here's one of your hostile reactions. Didn't bother to consider the fact that the readers/participants of this blog may have come to independent conclusions about Thompson, eh? I am not concerned about how he has conducted his campaign. I do not vote for someone because of their skill at campaigning...I vote based on who I believe will make the best president. And that person, in my opinion, is Fred Thompson.
And if you'll take the time to check the history at RedState, you'll note that Thompson is not the only candidate to appear here. But that would interfere with your hobby.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
This may just be from newer posters like myself, although I am a long-time reader of the site.
* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”
Essentially state that everyone that is for Fred is blind, dumb or ignorant, then claim that anyone offended by that baseless claim proves your point.
I think you owe everyone here(not just FDT supporters) an apology for this line - "You have several informed, educated, articulate, bloggers who have come together here and yet somehow there has been an unusual "group think" around Fred Thompson - likely due to his blogging on this site."
Until you do, you are on my Hinz Rule list.
I did not state that. If that's how it came across that's not what I meant. My point is mostly that on this site you can not criticize Fred Thompson without getting insulted. If you cannot be critical of someone/something without others refusing to see your point then, yes, that is group think. I don't know who all the main posters are (I do know who several are) and they are not like this. But there is no shortage of other posters who refuse to allow any critical viewpoint of Fred to be expressed. I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way.
For example I think Fred's campaign has done an extremely poor job of working with the media. I can't say that without people insulting me as documented in other posts.
* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”
It's a symbiotic relationship, the NY Times ye shall always have with you as well as that curse of American democracy, the undecideds awaiting October surprises.
There is hope, but let's not get to excited.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville