In an interview titled Expert Voices: How The Web Polarized Politics, between Debra D'Agostino and Gerry McGovern, Mr. McGovern brings up a genius point which often does not get much consideration:
"You're saying the Web can cause society to become more politically polarized than it already is?
It can. Think about it: They say 45 percent of Americans are democrats, 45 percent are republican, and 10 percent are independent. Can the Internet really undermine that polarization? It would be lovely to think it could. But more often then not, when democrats write blog entries, they are speaking to other democrats. I am curious to find how many hardcore republicans turned democrat as a result of the Web. I don't suspect there are many."
Thinking about that, consider the implications: everyone always mentions how they are trying to tap into resources such as Facebook and Myspace (among other social networking websites) to attract people to a certain product or service. Using streaming videos and other features of Web 2.0, companies are trying to further promote their products. The same is true about politics, but typically people are so involved into their parties that it separates society even farther. Sure, a Republican might go onto a Democrat's page for counterpoints, but with Web 2.0, it appears as if very few are actually being converted to the other party. On one hand, if a person is very solidified in a certain party, they will not budge (unless there is some catastrophic event), meaning that the main target audience of these pages are those people caught in the middle. But each party needs more voting members and supporters, so it also appears that with the multimedia, socially networked pages are targeting opponents. At the same time, they seem to get supporters of their own party excited for the campaign race. So who are they really targeting? Have these websites really lost their focus, especially with the usage of Web 2.0, rendering them ineffective? Surely, they bring all the latest news to the forefront of the page, but is it helping?
"Yet technology is so often heralded as a way to bring people together, to improve collaboration and make it easier to share views and opinions.
Tom Standage's book, The Victorian Internet, talks about how the telegraph was supposed to do just that. The big problem in the world had been the inability to communicate quickly over long distances. So along comes the telegraph, and it's supposed to bring about an era of peace and harmony. And what happened in the height of all that? World War I.
It's easy to get carried away with this Wired magazine view of "All You Need is Web 2.0," but in some ways the very technology that is meant to solve problems merely makes people more emotional—not more reasonable. We ultimately do a disservice to society by creating this euphoria about what technology can really deliver."
Alas, that seems to sum up the problem nicely.
Some examples of 2008 Presidential candidates include:
Bill Richardson
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John Edwards
Rudy Giuliani
2 comments:
I think these Web 2.0 applications have the most influence to sway the opinions of our generation and younger. The youth vote, many of which going to the polls for the first time. College students "experimenting" and being their own person, and maybe not voting the same party as their parents. I think that's where blogs and Facebook have the most influence.
Currently social media is very helpful in promoting. Does polarization only exist in politics?
Post a Comment