Polarization and Niche Blogging

In class, Alex described the rise of market segmentation associated with the development of cable television. He explained that, prior to cable, a mass audience existed in which Americans largely viewed the same content through the media.  However, as cable proliferated, hundreds of different channels emerged to target specific blocs of the population. Lifetime certainly doesn't court men with its slogan "Television For Women," and SpikeTV is unlikely to attract many female viewers with its male-centered programming. Because of this development, Americans are no longer seen by creators, marketers, or politicians as a mass audience; instead, we are divided by demographic characteristics, interests, and political ideologies.

As a result, Americans have considerably more options in choosing their political content.  Conservatives are able to watch Fox News and escape the biases of the mainstream media, while liberals can relish in Keith Olbermann's rants and Rachel Maddow's wit on a nightly basis on MSNBC. Gone are the days in which Walter Cronkite was watched and respected by the entire country. And indeed, political programs often seek to exploit this freedom associated with segmentation, becoming less interested in simply reporting the facts than inciting partisanship for the establishment of a strong viewer base. Bill O'Reilly's discussion of the "War on Christmas," for example, is hardly news-worthy, but it will draw many social conservatives to watch his program. 

This political niche-marketing applies to the blogosphere as well. You can simply look at the way this course was devised: some of us were responsible for reading "left-of-center" blogs while others were examining those on the "right-of-center."  I was assigned to observe the right-of-center blogs, and often, I noticed that these blogs would slant their content to attract specific readers or fire up the base. Hot Air was particularly noticeable for their tendency to push an inflammatory headline, but contain nuanced and thoughtful content in the actual post. Take a September 20 story that they called "ABC: Document contradicts Palin's Troopergate claim about police chief's trip." That story would seem to suggest real trouble for Palin, but in reality, was fairly neutral in its effect. These headlines, and captions that say things like "63 million suckers born every generation" tend to obscure the actual nuance in their posts. In addition, blogs are often notable for what they aren't talking about, such as their startling non-coverage of the Colin Powell endorsement. But really, is this surprising? Blogs are interested in attracting readers, and they don't want to alienate a conservative base by talking about things in moderation or by discussing news that hurts their own cause.

The problem with this trend is that some Americans are getting their news almost exclusively from these narrow markets. After this course is over, I myself will probably go back to reading Talking Points Memo every morning for my political news. But, if these markets are skewing the news and only serving to reinforce rather than challenge existing perspectives, they can prove detrimental to our polity. Before Barack Obama's historic victory, scholars were describing the higher rates of partisanship in the country. The "Red State/Blue State" gap may have weakened on November 4, but polarization in this country still remains strong...52% of the popular vote is not a landslide.  And if we only read or watch news designed to appeal to our political persuasion, we risk losing the ability to even interact with the other side.

To be sure, there are some benefits associated with the rise of partisan nice blogs, including the potential for grassroots organizing. Sites like The Daily Kos have actually served as effective organizing tools for liberal causes. Take this "Canvass" tag on their website as an example: people can post about canvassing opportunities, and reflect on their experiences while working for particular candidates. Given that some scholars like Janelle Wong have described the decline of grassroots and locally based campaigns in the context of media segmentation, the ability of blogs to facilitate this form of campaigning can be seen as a benefit that weighs against the increased polarization.  

In addition, political campaigns of the past have been seen as a battle between the "lesser of two evils," with candidates on both sides viewed as undesirable. The success of third party candidates in impacting the outcome of the 1992, 1996, and 2000 elections shows that voters sometimes do not feel heard by the two parties. The rise of niche blogs can produce a clarification of ideals for the parties, where lefties and righties serve as a check on major political leaders from ignoring their supporters. Already, the liberal base is attacking Obama for his Cabinet appointments, claiming that he is not living up to his progressive promises. I would argue that this sort of scrutiny from the left would not have occurred ten years ago, and shows that the distinct ideals of certain segments of the population are better heard with the rise and popularity of these niche blogs.

It is clear, then, that there are benefits associated with the rise of niche blogs. Nevertheless, with increased freedom to choose the source of our news and commentary, we also can avoid opinions that challenge our views or beliefs. And as these news sources and blogs require viewership to stay afloat, they have to seek our readership through slanted headlines, inciting commentary, and partisan choir-preaching. But if we only hear what we want to hear and see what we want to see, we risk giving more power to the political distinctions between us. The mass audience is never coming back, but we could soon lose the idea of a national identity as well...