« To Make Memorial Day Memorable
Blog Controversy (What Else?): Did Obama Give Hillary Clinton The Finger? »
Study of what attracts readers to political blogs wins Broadcast Educ. Assn. top prize
Here’s something the Clinton, Obama and McCain campaign consultants, advisers, strategists, directors or whatever they call themselves should read, from Idaho State University:
Noting the growing popularity of blogs as an information medium, [assistant professor in the James E. Rogers Department of Mass Communication at Idaho State University, Daekyung] Kim focused on blogging’s political impact. Blogs are online diaries or commentaries that readers can respond to and easily pass on to friends.
Kim’s study surveyed online political users to explore why users access political blogs after he wondered, “What motivates bloggers?”
“I found that many Internet users are attracted to political blogs, where they can freely express their opinions and communicate with like-minded people,” Kim said. “This seems to show the potential of blogs as an interactive forum with few controls. This study may offer useful insights into the roles of blogs during presidential elections and in politics in general.”
Note the “freely express their opinions and communicate with like-minded people.” That doesn’t bode too well for sites like RedBlueAmerica or Wide Open for that matter, unless people are using such sites as merely tools for information gathering. But for interacting? Maybe not so much or at least not crossing over to discuss with those who aren’t of a like-mind.
I’ve emailed Professor Kim in hopes of seeing the report.
3 Responses to “Study of what attracts readers to political blogs wins Broadcast Educ. Assn. top prize”
I found the 'like-minded' part absolutely alarming. That just reinforces very narrow minded opinions.
Even when there is diverse commentary, people seem to talk past one another, without acknowledging what the opposing opinions are.
A civil argument, acknowleding the other's thinking, at least does that., and even if agreement isn't reached, understanding is expanded. Blogs are at their best whaen that happens.
It certainly seems clear that people prefer to hear voices similar to their own. That's basic socialization and is evidence by the fact that sites with distinct agendas / views are the biggest ones, while the middle grounds are typically smaller.
More people might like genuine debate, but genuine debate that's enjoyable is rare and difficult in huge anonymous forums. Even here, about half the comments are designed to beat one another down as opposed to just talk about disagreements and solutions, and this is one of the best sites.
Debate on emotional issues, as politics is for many, takes trust and a willingness to be wrong. Trust is absent online and only a few don't mind being publically an idiot. (We like to be idiots in private.)
I agree with you both. It's what's such a shame at times about the Internet and takes the gleam off of the shine that things could be different.
How do we get it to be different? I know that TMV works very very hard at that.