Salon article on echo chambers
Salon this morning is running an article of mine about the “echo chamber” meme, i.e., the idea that the Net encourages members of groups to listen only to their own opinions. I think it’s a confused meme that diverts attention from the real echo chambers, beginning with the mainstream media.
And then there’s the extreme case of a president who doesn’t even read the newspapers:
I get briefed by Andy Card and Condi in the morning. They come in and tell me. … I glance at the headlines just to kind of a flavor for what’s moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves. … And the best way to get the news is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what’s happening in the world.”
Joe Conason points out that maybe this is why the President thinks we invaded Iraq because Hussein wouldn’t let inspectors in, that he (W) has been cutting discretionary spending more than Clinton did, and that his new budget “cuts the deficit in half in five years.”
Categories: Uncategorized dw
Why is it one or the other? The mass media are an echo chamber of one sort–they repeat what each other say. Online communities are echo chambers of another sort–they repeat what their members say.
By the way, your robot still thinks my domain name smells like spam, so I’ve subbed in an alternate.
Any possibility you can convince your robot that the noble jzip dot org domain name is prime rib?
It could be “and” instead of”either-or,” but in this case I think the mainstream media is exactly an echo chamber but what are called Internet “echo chambers” are the same as conversations everywhere, except in the way that I say in the article.
(I’ve taken jzip out of the penalty box. I don’t know how it got there. Sorry!)
David, on the Clark blog an occasional comment about the overall campaign’s weakness, or lack of media relations would pop up only to be shouted down, and rated down. (We have a rating system where your posts can be rated zero, and go below a threshhold and not be visible to most bloggers who have set their preferences that way. A great troll killer.)
Negative comments would be met with “So you think you know more than the professional campaign staff?” Or, basically, “Shut up.”
Four months later it is decided maybe the campaign management was not doing the best it could.
That’s one example. Don’t know what the atmosphere on the Dean blog was, but at Clark’s, looking back, it was supportive of Clark naturally, but exclusively, so that negative or even constructive criticism was not allowed. I can’t help but think if we had screamed louder in the 2nd month of the campaign, something might have changed. But, those comments were not allowed since the purpose of the group was to be supportive.
There are always strong voices that can and will shout down the less aggressive voices sometimes to the detriment of the long term goal. Same in in-person meetings. Lesson: if you have something important to say, take it off the blog, to the campaign, or to the candidate.
One big difference in the Web and an in person gathering is that everyone, even the opponents are able to read the Web postings, so, often groups watch what they say, and true constructive discussion is limited. We had a particularly ugly remark about one of our campaign staff quoted in the ABC News The Note on the Web. Was the ugly remark correct? Probably. Did it ever get mentioned again and discussed and perhaps fixed? Absolutely not.
We also thought Wes and even his wife might drop by and read a comment or two, so you can imagine how that would inhibit certain comments. Not from all of course, but from many.
Also, on the Web, it’s in writing.
So, to me, the real work remains outside of the Web.
I do think we were in a lovely little cocoon, and it was not true to the real world. Lesson: As you mentioned in the Salon article, don’t let it become your only exposure. I might say, don’t let it become your majority exposure.
Looking back too, I think I felt more a part of things than I was. Or, I thought our blog group was more important than it was. There was the actual campaign, and then us, the peanut gallery. But, in our case, the peanut gallery was the people who drafted Clark. (You remarked once that you liked the Dean campaign for its grass roots approach, so I just wanted to comment here that Clark’s campaign started from grass roots. The stalking horse and Bill’s boy comments were complete media fabrications which I know you will believe now. Clark ran because 60-80,000 people wrote and asked him to.)
I thought later, too, that what if the campaign staff were watching the blog as sort of a huge focus group. They would have thought they were perfect. No room for improvement here. Clark rocks and has it in the bag!
Take care,
Linda
These are salient and important observations, far more nuanced than an analysis that says simply, “It was an echo chamber.” Thanks.
Someting in a similar vein to the President relying on others to gather information for him… The Bush’s dog, Spot, was put down today. See the full article here:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040222/D80S0QA00.html
Important quote: “Mrs. Bush has often said that – especially with Bushes’ two daughters off at college – talking about and playing with the dogs and the family’s much more reclusive cat, Willy, make up a significant portion of the First Couple’s entertainment. ”
We definitely need a President who doesn’t have others gather and process information for him and doesn’t derive a significant portion of his entertainment from common housepets. Bush is completely disconnected from the people who live in the Blue states. Wouldn’t you all agree?
-Brad