Wednesday, September 13, 2006
A Journey to Blogsphere
As the internet continues to penetrate greater segments of our cultural existence, the already-burgeoning power of the blog in American politics has finally been recognized. Ned Lamont’s improbable victory over veteran Senator Joe Lieberman was characterized as a war fought and won by a dedicated army of bloggers (see New York Times).
You may be asking yourselves whether blogs adhere to the timeless standards of journalism such as serious investigative research, unbiased accounts, and a commitment to professionalism. Undoubtedly, your average blog boils down to an angry man in pajamas venting to a screen. Yet a good blog has the ability to spark meaningful discussion about important issues with substantive entries.
For example, read Kos’s scathing critique of the Democratic Party’s traditional campaign strategies entitled Building a Narrative. He makes the argument that appears difficult to refute: People will vote for the candidate with the better story, rather than the one with the best record. In other words, Democrats will often present their case in the form of statistics, “appeal[ing] to voter's brains”, while the Republicans are experts at building a narrative about their candidate that people can easily digest. By way of illustration, Kos writes that the Republican narrative of the 2004 presidential election was “1) Bush will defend America, and 2) Kerry is a flip flopper.”
Comments to the blog posting ranged from the hasty “Right on!” to the thoughtful “good point, but inadequate evidence cited.” LihTox agreed with Kos’s suggested changes, but dismissed his unstated assumption.
On a similar note, another blogger believes that Kos has created a false dichotomy: Narratives needn’t replace useful information. If used correctly, facts can provide the meat to a compelling story.
I myself am not entirely convinced by the evidence, notwithstanding the argument’s logical appeal. Kos uses two presidential elections to build his case, not exactly representative samplings.
Secondly, I need to see more evidence that Democrats actually campaign this way. The statistics on Kos’s entry come from the unofficial Ford-for-Senate website. What does Ford say on his official website? How would it compare to the content on the website of his Republican opponent Bob Corker? In my estimation, Democrats tell plenty of good narratives, they just don’t descend to the level of deploying fear tactics like Karl Rove and the Republicans will do. One line from Kerry’s 2004 debate, “You can be certain and wrong”, was a terrific narrative, in my opinion.
The blogsphere can never take the place of news, but it could evolve into a vibrant new forum for public debate, a modern-day agora.
As the internet continues to penetrate greater segments of our cultural existence, the already-burgeoning power of the blog in American politics has finally been recognized. Ned Lamont’s improbable victory over veteran Senator Joe Lieberman was characterized as a war fought and won by a dedicated army of bloggers (see New York Times).
You may be asking yourselves whether blogs adhere to the timeless standards of journalism such as serious investigative research, unbiased accounts, and a commitment to professionalism. Undoubtedly, your average blog boils down to an angry man in pajamas venting to a screen. Yet a good blog has the ability to spark meaningful discussion about important issues with substantive entries.
For example, read Kos’s scathing critique of the Democratic Party’s traditional campaign strategies entitled Building a Narrative. He makes the argument that appears difficult to refute: People will vote for the candidate with the better story, rather than the one with the best record. In other words, Democrats will often present their case in the form of statistics, “appeal[ing] to voter's brains”, while the Republicans are experts at building a narrative about their candidate that people can easily digest. By way of illustration, Kos writes that the Republican narrative of the 2004 presidential election was “1) Bush will defend America, and 2) Kerry is a flip flopper.”
Comments to the blog posting ranged from the hasty “Right on!” to the thoughtful “good point, but inadequate evidence cited.” LihTox agreed with Kos’s suggested changes, but dismissed his unstated assumption.
Most Americans aren't stupid, but they are distracted.
With the terrible economy, they're working more than full-time, then
coming home to raise their kids. They don't have time to read
Congressional bills (and educate themselves to the point where they can understand what the densely-worded bills are saying), and they certainly don't have the energy. They don't extensively research the candidates they vote for, because there are other things that are more important to them: making a living, raising their kids, having a little fun.
On a similar note, another blogger believes that Kos has created a false dichotomy: Narratives needn’t replace useful information. If used correctly, facts can provide the meat to a compelling story.
I myself am not entirely convinced by the evidence, notwithstanding the argument’s logical appeal. Kos uses two presidential elections to build his case, not exactly representative samplings.
Secondly, I need to see more evidence that Democrats actually campaign this way. The statistics on Kos’s entry come from the unofficial Ford-for-Senate website. What does Ford say on his official website? How would it compare to the content on the website of his Republican opponent Bob Corker? In my estimation, Democrats tell plenty of good narratives, they just don’t descend to the level of deploying fear tactics like Karl Rove and the Republicans will do. One line from Kerry’s 2004 debate, “You can be certain and wrong”, was a terrific narrative, in my opinion.
The blogsphere can never take the place of news, but it could evolve into a vibrant new forum for public debate, a modern-day agora.
# posted by Jonathan Noble @ 1:38 AM 
