On the Blogosphere and Partisanship
As far as I am concerned, PoliGazette’s Managing Editor Jason Steck is right when he writes that partisanship has taken over the blogosphere; conservative bloggers and liberal blogs both become increasingly extreme. I also agree with him that bloggers and blogreaders themselves are to blame for this development. The reason that blogs are becoming increasingly more partisan and increasingly less objective and intellectually stimimulating is that readers reward blogs that repeat the standard talking points.
Furthermore, those blogs only link to blogs that share their views and that repeat the talking points as well. Partisan blogs link to partisan blogs. Other blogs are ignored, perhaps even blacklisted.
The reason for this development is three-fold:
1. Bloggers themselves do not like to read posts they disagree with. They want to read slanted opinions, so that their own opinions are confirmed. These bloggers all share the same agenda and can, therefore, easily coorporate with each other.
2. The same should be said for the average blogreader; the average blogreader does not want to read any articles he disagrees with. No, he only wants to see his prejudices and views confirmed. When a partisan blogger links to a non-partisan or other kind of partisan blog, this is usually only meant to show just how ‘ignorant’ the ‘other side’ is. This is, of course, accepted by blogreaders.
3. There are so many blogs out there that bloggers don’t have a lot of time to check all possibly good ones out. Instead they use search engins to find other blogs that write about subjects they care about as well. The most popular website to find news articles and blogposts about those articles is Memeorandum. So, they all use this website; the blogs that do not get linked at Memeo are ignored. Not willfully, but still ignored.
Does that mean there is little to no hope for blogs that like to offer readers a variety of opinions, and a variety of perspectives? Not necessarily; there may be less readers interested in such blogs, but there are also few such blog in existence. The partisan blogs have to share, say, 10 million readers with each other (random number), non-partisan blogs 1 million. A quick glance over the blogosphere shows that there are significantly more partisan than non-partisan blogs; a 10-fold could very well be correct. If that’s the case, it means that the big non-partisan blogs can never become as big as the big partisan blogs, but they can still get a respectable readership every day.
I think there are quite a few broad generalisations here that are quite untrue. You do not take into account commentators who are not of one ilk or another on most popular blogs. Where do libertarian or Libertarian fall into this formula anyway? Are we partisan or not?And how can the blogs not be partisan when the American media is so partisan towards the Democrats with very few exceptions.
Libertarians would be considered partisan as well, Andrew. They don’t fall into standard right-left notions of partisanship, but they are nonetheless partisan, and if all you do is read articles from the Cato Institute, you would fit the aforementioned definition.
The true measure of a non-partisan is not someone who doesn’t have political viewpoints, but rather one who seeks to be fair in their assessment of differing points of view. Take two pro-capitalist publications, WSJ OpinionJournal and the Economist. I have come to find the former oppressively boring, because what it says is inherently predictable. If it runs pieces from liberals at all, it is usually Bjorn Lomborg on climate change or Joseph Lieberman on National Security. The Economist, on the other hand, has a much more diverse mix of viewpoints. It is pro-gun control, pro-free trade, pro-war, anti-torture, endorsed Kerry, pro-deregulation, anti-religious right, and anti-death penalty. While I don’t agree with all of those viewpoints, I am often mesmerized by the articles, 1) because of my love for the field they cover and 2) I never know what they’re going to say next. People offering unique points of view, or even old points of view expressed or argued effectively, will always get a reading from me. If that is the state of mind you hold, than this article is not directed at you. If you find yourself hostile to the occasional Liberal or culturally conservative viewpoint because of your views on the issue, it is. Simple as that.
The true measure of a non-partisan is not someone who doesn’t have political viewpoints, but rather one who seeks to be fair in their assessment of differing points of view.
Which will still get you called a partisan whenever you disagree with an ideologue and simply offer a supported set of opinions that lies athwart of their favored orthodoxy. Trust me on this.
If your hearts beating and you have a pulse and your not on life support……………..Your a partisan.
Perhaps, but I notice you do not address the existence of brainwave activity. And that is what differentiates mindless partisanship from that which may be capable of actual discussion and debate.
Speaking of braindead. I just read this as part of an email sent out to the moveon dot org faithful in response to the drilling or no drilling argument.
Anyone see whats wrong with this?
It’s a scam. Offshore drilling won’t save any money at the pumps for years (although it will boost oil company profits). But some senior Democrats are showing signs of caving under all this pressure—and polls show McCain’s attacks may be hurting Obama.
The talking point has been it will take years to get oil to the market. If that is so then how is offshore drilling going to put more money into the oil companies pockets? They do not make any money and in fact spend considerable amounts of money exploring for and finding oil.
You do not make money till you start pumping oil. Once oil starts pumping even the anti drilling crowd acknowledges that you will save some money at the pump.
Move on types cant even get their facts straight they are so flustered over this drilling dilemna.
I hate to break it to you, but this is precisely the sort of cherry picking us moderates are talking about. People who know their economics know that price is set on a global scale between supply and demand. The wells we could drill in those places are a drop in the bucket compared to those drilling sites around the world that are already pumping. It is true that oil companies would not see the revenue until they actually started selling the oil (being an accountant by training, I can tell you that reserve valuations are not counted towards profits until sold, although it might still be included in the financial statements). But this oil would be sold on the global market to the highest bidder, and the benefit to us would be lost in the global shuffle. As much as I hate to say it, moveon.org is right.
We commonly hear that the reason oil prices have risen is rapid demand growth in developing countries, particularly China and India. But the decline of mature oil fields throughout the world is a much greater source of demand for new oil supplies than the growth of end user demand. It has been estimated by CERA that declining fields lose 4.5% of total oil production per year thus requiring about 3.9 mb/d of new oil each year for the global oil supply to stay the same.
Declining Production. Although oil production in Prudhoe Bay is declining, officials at BP Exploration (Alaska) say they expect to produce from the field until the year 2020. "After that, it depends on what happens to gas," says Mike Davidson, manager of Prudhoe Bay resource development. "Gas production could go on until the middle of the next century." About 7 billion barrels have been recovered from Prudhoe Bay so far, and the field still has proven reserves of 4.57…Tor field. North sea. Maximum production rate was 80,361 barrels per day. 1998 production rate was 5,981 Barrels per day.No cherry picking here sir. It does however never cease to amaze me at how everyone really does think they understand the oil business by simply studying economics in college or grasping the basics of supply and demand.While to popular talking point of those in favor of oil drilling that China and India are using up excess supply has some merit was is being failed to grasp by nearly everyone is that discoveries of oil is not keeping up with the declining oil fields spread around the globe.This is the number one enemy of stable oil pricing and it is why opening up oil drilling will enable some stability to the market. Decline rates is a subject of great interest and debate to oil investors because the total potential swing in oil production is so large. This is precisely why the oil prices are headed thru the roof if we dont find more oil and find it soon.
Nearly a quarter of the world’s daily oil output of 85 million barrels is pumped from the biggest 20 fields, according to estimates from Wood Mackenzie, a Scotland-based oil consulting firm.
1. Ghawar Unknown
2a. Burgan CONFIRMED DECLINE ~14% (Source)
2b. Cantarell CONFIRMED DECLINE ~14% (Source)
3. Bolivar Coastal Unknown
4. Safaniya-Khafji Unknown
5. Rumaila Unknown
6. Tengiz Unknown
7. Ahwaz CONFIRMED DECLINE ~64% (HOLY CRAP!) (Source)
8. Kirkuk CONFIRMED DECLINE Need Source
9. Marun CONFIRMED DECLINE (Source)
10. Gachsaran Unknown
11. Aghajari CONFIRMED DECLINE (Source)
12. Samotlor CONFIRMED DECLINE ~ 9% (Simmons’ book IIRC)
13a. Prudhoe Bay CONFIRMED DECLINE ~11% (Multiple sources)
13b. Kashagan Unknown
14. Abqaiq I don’t know, but have you seen the cross section? It’s all water!
15. Romashkino Unknown
16. Chicontepec Unknown
17. Berri Unknown
18. Zakum Unknown
19. Manifa Unknown
20. Faroozan-Marjan Unknown
21. Marlim, Campos CONFIRMED DECLINE ~8% (Source)
Cantarell The huge field in Mexico has declined by 400,000 bbls per day in just the last 2 years.
It’s widely believed that the world’s biggest oil fields have already been found. In the decades leading up to the 1970s, the world discovered eight big fields that produced between 500,000 to one million barrels a day. During the 1970s and 1980s, only two were found. Since then, only one — the Kashagan field in Kazakhstan — has the potential to easily top the 500,000 barrel-a-day mark.
There is a lot more to the oil business then economics 101 or principals of accounting.
OK, but these figures are about declining production, not exploration. We are talking about opening up relatively few areas for exploration domestically. People on the right are suggesting that oil prices will plummet immediately if we engage in more exploration domestically, which is simply not true. Case in point: The Yupi and Jupiter oil field discoveries in Brazil had an immediate impact on Petrobras’s stock price, but minimal impact on the price overall (current prediction is that Yupi will top 100,000 a day by 2012). I don’t pretend to be an expert on the oil market ( I knew about the oil discovery in Brazil, but had to google it for the details), but I do try and keep my eyes and ears open. Also googled the Kashagan field: discovered in 2000. Current production to date: 0.
OK, but these figures are about declining production, not exploration. We are talking about opening up relatively few areas for exploration domestically.
To remain static we must produce roughly 3.5 million bbls of oil per day in new oil. This does not mean drilling more holes in the same places. If that were true then oil would still be roughly 25 dollars per bbl.
Good news to you anti drillers. The price of oil will never be much less then 75 dollars per bbls again. Other then for a worldwide depression, even recession will not drop the price of oil much lower then 75 dollars per bbl.
This alone is going to result in the increased production of hybrids by the Automobile manufacturers as well as increased development of alternatives. In addition we DO NEED to inflate our tires, turn out the lights and do whatever it is that we need to do to conserve.
The high price of gasoline will drive the advance of green technology. But if we do not find oil. If we do not search, then we are going to be in dire straights and very shortly because the huge prices of oil will perpetuate cycles of recession much quicker then the current 5-7 year cycles that we have seen over the last 30 plus years.
Repeating cycles of recession will play havoc with industries and businesses that we depend upon to provide benefits and JOBS. Recession means far and away less taxes to spend on stuff. Governments contract social services as recessions strangle the governments ability to collect taxes. The high price of gasoline needs to be moderated by oil exploration to replace diminishing fields or we are in for a very TERRIBLE TIME ahead.
THAT is simple economics. Higher and higher prices of oil as these existing oil fields diminish is will be the ruin of modern society in a world that is based upon carbon technology. In some countries that is no big deal. In places like America where many of us drive 10-40 miles per day to work and there is NO mass transit, that is a huge deal.
Getting back to the original topic…
I’d point out, once again, that partisan blogs often have stories that get missed elsewhere (or are little discussed elsewhere) precisely because of their bias.
And I think most blog readers are aware of their blog’s biases, it’s not like they’re being deceived. If they wanted to read a blog with another political viewpoint, they could do so easily. In fact, I’d argue that it’s hard not to hear opposing viewpoints, even if you’re careful in your selection of news. At the very least, your favorite partisan blog will point out some of these arguments, if only to refute them
But the question is, why would they? If it was a single isolated issue I could see someone looking at opposing viewpoints. But if it was a case of a broader clash of viewpoints (as it usually is in most political disagreements) then it’s not going to work; you’re going to disagree with everything they say from the first sentence, because you’re operating from a different worldview.
I could read an argument by Michael as to how the surge worked, but there’d be no point; Michael’s a hawk who supported the Iraq War and I’m a dove who opposed it. His argument would have its basis in a viewpoint that was quite opposite to mine. If the basic viewpoints don’t match up then any specific arguments arising from them aren’t going to convince.
Tom, you are reinforcing my point: The problem of ideological homogeneity and "scripts" is caused by the demands of the blog readers themselves. They aren’t being deceived. They are the ones driving the train of triviality in the first place. If anything, it is some of the bloggers themselves who wind up feeling like they were deceived by false promises of a new medium for serious political debate. The blogosphere has utterly failed to live up to its billing, IMO.
In my opinion, the inability or unwillingness to engage in arguments with people who have different viewpoints is a sign of intellectual weakness and/or laziness. At a minimum, I would say it a sign of profound intellectual insecurity. The fact that it is the dominant view in American political culture may have something to do with the long-time dominance of anti-intellectualism generally in American culture. Those who can simultaneously consider seriously and engage in debate regarding widely differing viewpoints are usually considered to be haughty eggheads or sketchy flip-floppers. As David Brooks points out today, the control of the medium is more of a status symbol in American culture today than any knowledge or even awareness of knowledge. Having actual knowledge only exposes someone an arrogant throwback who should be put in their place. (Ironically and depressingly, this attitude of overt hatred towards those who have actual knowledge and experience over hand-wavy theories is even more pronounced these days in the world of intercollegiate debate that I used to love. In some areas of academia, radical anti-intellectual inmates have taken over the asylum.)
The observation in 2004 (echoed widely now) that someone might be “too smart to be President” is a bizarre but true observation on American political culture. It would be an overstatement to say that the voters prefer morons, but it would be accurate to say that they prefer the intellectually mediocre, people who won’t challenge them or make them feel their own ignorance about the world.
P.S. Yes, I know how elitist that last line sounds. But I don’t consider intellectual elitism to be a vice. I dissent willfully from the American consensus that elitism is bad and pretended egalitarianism is good. I think those are recipes for gradual but inescapable cultural decline.
Almost sounds like you’re calling me lazy
I do think one should consider alternative viewpoints, especially when looking at overarching worldviews.
But what happens after you’ve already considered and rejected an opposing worldview? Not only are you going to reject the opposing worldivew, you’re going to reject the specific arguments/issues that stem from that worldview as well. What you’re describing is someone who hasn’t even considered how their opponents think. What I’m describing is someone who has considered how their opponents think and rejected it.
You see, I’ve found that most times the issue at hand really isn’t the issue at hand; it’s just a proxy for an ongoing battle between opposing political/religious/social worldviews. If you think the worldview is wrong then you’re going to consider all the positions that stem from that worldview to be wrong, so you might as well not even get into the debate.
And I don’t think it’s accurate to say that it’s anti-intellectual to value theory over "actual knowledge". It reminds me of my classmates, who want to know why they have to take classes in nursing theory and research when instead they could be learning how to start an IV. And many experienced RNs might agree. But if you really want to make nursing a profession you need to be conscious of what you’re doing and where you’re going, which requires those "hand-wavey" theories.
Tom, a couple of points in response to yours.
First, I think Jason is absolutely right about the requirement for intellectual integrity which demands that we continue to expose ourself to opposing viewpoints. You’re right that often we’ve already rejected the axioms by which other people have derived their own views, but part of the point of hearing them out anyway is to challenge your own axioms and see if they hold up. If some of the ideas or information presented by that person start to make sense, then you have to ask yourself if your own views still hold up to that challenge or not- and perhaps some of your core ideas might have to be reexamined.
In addition, if you ever want to convince someone else that your own views are correct, you need to better understand why other people hold opposing views. Reading their articles allows you a view into their thought processes, and you may discover a point of weakness which will allow you to make a strong argument for your opposing view.
Real intellectual thought requires all of the above, IMO (a willingness to continually challenge our own views and admit the occasional need for adjustment, as well as a willingness to take the time to thoroughly understand opposing views.) All of which is seriously lacking in our culture today, unfortunately.
Oops, forgot to include my second major point.
You mention that some partisan blogs include exposition that you can’t find elsewhere. I agree with that, but there’s another frustration that goes along with the phenomenon; generally, no one from the ‘other side’ is willing to accept the source as a credible one, so the blogger posting the argument or idea is basically preaching to the choir. Can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told that a link to CATO or Heritage is one that another commenter won’t even consider reading, for example, not to mention Hot Air or Michelle Malkin. I’m sure the same thing would occur if a liberal was debating a point with a conservative and linked to a site with a left bias. Instead of dismissing those kinds of sources outright, the correct response is to read and rebut any points that are slanted or to provide the counterbalancing perspective, but most of the time that’s not how people respond.
Tom, I was not calling you lazy, I was calling an overall approach (avoidance of dissent) intellectually lazy. Whether you choose to embrace that approach or not is your choice, but it remains lazy (in my opinion) whether or not you choose it. I don’t think I should refrain from criticizing it just out of fear that someone who embraces it will get offended when called out.
As for the overriding role of theory, I was talking about people who elevate their ideological theories over mundane practical realities. I recently had an extended conversation (I won’t call it a debate, because he refused to respond to counter-arguments with anything more than reiterations of his list of demons) with a college student who became very angry with me when I challenged his sweeping visions of "fundamental changes in our society" with practical questions about HOW such visions could ever be implemented. He believed (having been taught to by his activist mentors) that anyone who pointed out such practical problems with sweeping visions of transforming society was showing themselves to be a bad person and a tool of the establishment. He specifically argued that emotion should trump evidence if the issue was important enough. He became resentful and abusive whenever confronted by greater knowledge that rendered his emotionally-held ideological theories suspect. Unfortunately, he is not atypical among a certain subset of college students. They are an expression of an anti-intellectual underlying political culture of “activism” that values passion over knowledge and condemns anyone who has contravening knowledge as an outright enemy. They directly and willfully seek to exclude all perspectives that might challenge their “community” of “activism”.
Unfortunately, his mode of intellectual dysfunction also typifies the underlying political culture of the blogosphere. Anyone who does not consistently reiterate a partisan meme is deemed an “enemy” and is shunned. Look at the pattern of which news stories are discussed by which blogs on Memeorandum. Stories that are bad news for Obama are commented upon by ONLY righty/anti-Obama blogs and stories that cause problems for McCain are commented upon by ONLY lefty/anti-McCain blogs. Ne’er the two shall debate each other directly, heaven forbid! The writers and readers of ideological blogs are far too intellectually insecure to deal with the possibility that the world is too complex to ALWAYS contain ONLY information that is good for those they agree with and bad for those they disagree with. Rather than dealing with that complexity, they wall themselves off from it and shun those who attempt to invade their ideological sanctuaries.
Jason, I know the subset of students (and faculty) you’re talking about: The extremist set. And why not call me lazy? I’m sitting here typing on my computer instead of doing something useful.
Christine, you should indeed try to hear out the other side and understand their viewpoint, but at some point you have to accept or reject it. And if you do the latter, there is no reason to reconsider your viewpoint unless some new argument comes up. And I rarely hear any arguments that aren’t minor variants of previous ones…
That may be because whenever innovative arguments DO emerge, they are immediately misrepresented by partisan trolls to force-fit them into pre-existing pigeonholes. Observe, for example, what Rudi did to my recent post on health care. It is a typical example of why I am so disillusioned with taking the trouble to even try to write balanced posts. Predictably conventional ideologues like Rudi just quote them out of context to force them back on-script. (Rudi quotes the point I made about the virtues of the U.S. health care system, ignores the portion about its vices, and then accuses me of merely repeating talking points from conservative groups he doesn’t like.)
And trolls like that vastly outnumber the rest of the people in the blogosphere. They are, in fact, one of the enforcers of scripted uniformity. An innovative argument has little chance to get discussed before being hijacked by ideological scripting trolls. By the time the scripting trolls are done misquoting and misrepresenting and throwing around labels and accusations of nefarious associations, even the most original argument in the world will appear to be little more than just another round in the partisan wars.