Now Now Now

We've been discussing for the past 15 weeks how blogs have changed politics. And, as I said in my last post, I agree. But, as we've also seen in the last few classes, these media "revolutions" have occurred throughout history. The printing press changed how the Church could preach, mostly because the people could now read the Bible for themselves and interpret the text. So, priests had to...you know...tell the truth. It revolutionized the way by which our leaders communicated with their constituencies and/or congregations. The postal service did another disservice to our leaders when it connected people who lived on opposite sides of the country. The television gave people a chance to see their leaders from the comfort of their own home and judge them for their appearances and sweaty foreheads. Then the internet came around, and the game changed again, but not in a totally surprising way. The internet connects people, like the postal service, but in a fraction of the time. It's a wonder to me that politicians have not yet fully adapted to the consequences of our new technologies. Cell phones, digital cameras, and a slew of other technologies allow normal people to capture abnormal behavior, and let the world see it instantaneously. If normal people can capture things like senators ranting some racist rant, what's going to stop the elite media from picking up where normal people are left in the dust?

My biggest concern as I read blogs this semester was about how they are used by bloggers. Sometimes a new technology is created, but we do not figure out how to maximize it's potential until too late, until we have exploited it (or it exploits us...like in "The Matrix"). I'm always hesitant to read a blog because I'm afraid it will just be partisan rhetoric, with no real analysis of news. And if I want analysis, I'll read the Times. But there are some important differences. Like we talked about, the level of segmentation in the blogosphere is mind-boggling. From left-of-center blogs to blogs about someone's experiences abroad, the internet is full of opinionated posts from every angle. Shirky would agree that blogs connect people with specific interests. I found a blog for people with the last name Pepper. I'd fit right in, right? I don't know...

But these partisan blogs, from Talking Points Memo to Hot Air, also contribute to the cycle of media news I find most distressing: what Jon Stewart would refer to as "partisan hackery." I've written about this numerous times this semester (here especially), and even though my experiences in the blogosphere have opened my eyes to a number of positive aspects of this news media revolution, I still remain cautious. I don't want to live in a world of selectivity and bias, where people do, in fact, get their news from The Daily Show and not from the Times or the Tribune. You can argue as much as you against the old media (even though Judith Miller doesn't help my case...) but I still find myself look to nytimes.com for my morning read, rather than Drudge or Daily Kos. I've never been a fan of the tabloids.

But, as I said before, and seeing as my opinions won't change anything, I find that politicians should have found their footing on the blogosphere long ago. This election showed the power of the internet and of the blog. I respectfully disagree with Paul, and I think that even the most insignificant of gaffes stuck with the people, and I think that's largely due to the attention they got on the blogs, and consequently in the elite media outlets.

One more thing: the difference between partisan blogs and so-called news blogs was glaring. The latter are just boring. I don't care what some real journalist thinks...I'll just read his real article. If I want someone's opinion, I'll read their partisan blogs, where they can rail against candidates and chant my candidate's name. News blogs, to me, have no purpose, except to bypass an editor. But is anyone really that desperate for news that they can't wait for the morning? I guess the answer is yes. And that's why blogs have changed things. People are more impatient than ever. They need the news now now now. And now now now, they can get it, biased or not so much.