Thinking back upon our discussion in class tonight, it occurs to me that I probably didn't clearly articulate the larger point I wanted to make about the readings under review. Let me try here.
We know that media matters. We know that audiences are fragmenting. We know that our own biases frame our interpretation of events. We are reasonably sure that television has its own particular effects upon perception, and probably upon political behavior. We know (or very strongly suspect) than online communication has effects upon the acquisition of knowledge, the distribution of that knowledge among the population, and probably upon political behavior and participation. What we don't yet know with anything approaching certainty, or even satisfaction, is what those effects are, and how they vary from person to person, from group to group.
The challenge for us is to critically evaluate the scholarship that has been done on these topics, to reconcile competing or contradictory findings, to try to build upon that knowledge ourselves.
That's still not quite it, but I'll/we'll continue noodling with this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Reflecting of Daniel's presentation today I'd like to ask a question. If I recall correctly, we were trying to determine a way of knowing whether the amount of time one spends online directly affects the chances of their activism outside. Leaving the political spectrum for a moment, why can't we just say that we live in an age of laziness and the internet is fueling that in a major way? If we say that then it's very easy to say that those who are laziest (i.e. spend the most time on the internet) are the least likely to get out and be active whether politically or otherwise. The fact that they might be spending a lot of their time on the internet engrossed in politics is a side point.
And another thing: I can't understand how a person could be so gung-ho about a certain candidate during the campaign and then not go out and vote when the time comes. Even when considering the question posed at the end of class. I don't think that that person could be called more politically active than a person who is actually out in the field bringing in votes, or even just casting their own vote.
Seth, to address your second point first, just as you said people are lazy and therefore no matter how "gung-ho" they are about a candidate they are too lazy to actually go out and vote. If voting could be done online they maybe be the people who will vote first, but getting these people out of their chairs might be asking too much.
Second, although it seems that people are getting lazier (and America is in fact suffering from an obesity epidemic), and your point may actually be accurate, we need some sort of statistical data to back your statement up. Have you seen any? If you do find something please post a link.
Post a Comment