Blogs and Media Effects

Matt Stoller skewers Adam Nagourney's Sunday's puff piece on Rahm Emmanueal and Chuck Schumer and in so doing touches on what is wrong with so much of traditional political journalism.

It's just, well, bad. It's boring. It discusses politics as if there are no stakes, as if it's merely a parlour game played for the entertainment of wealthy elites.

Nagourney's piece reminded me of his article from earlier this month on the Internet's effect on politics. (iI was also widely panned.) The kernel I took away was a quote from Jerome Armstrong:

"The holy grail that everybody is looking for right now is how can you use the Internet for persuasion,''

Indeed. What are the media effects of the blog and the podcast? How do partisan blogs differ from more open blog approaches? My suspicion is that the conversations enabled by Web 2.0 approaches faciliate the joining of like-minded folks but do not persuade many. Is the disproportionate weight of libertarian blogs medium-determined, or are we likely to see blogs as more reflective of non-Net political currents over time? (I think of Scoble's admonition to stretch beyond Memeorandum.)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s