In the midst of this design and usability discussion, I can't help but lump spelling and grammar into the growing list of "threats to our democracy." If the old media have anything on the new, a competent editor falls somewhere near the top of the list.
Example: In the course of twenty minutes, I found two major spelling mistakes in two highly reputable online publications. And I was skimming. A Slate writer told the world how he had started to "thihk" Deep Throat wasn't W. Mark Felt (whom I know as "D.T."*), while All Music let us all in on Smog's new album, A River Ain't To Much To Love, in its weekly newsletter.
Now I know that I'm setting the the Toaster up for heavy ribbing on my spelling, punctuation and grammar. The hypocrite in me will tell you that blogs are horses of a different color, but there's something to be said for being skeptical of how well a given fact was checked if its neighbor sentence hinges on a giant, ugly, gross-like-gum-on-the-bottom-of-your-shoe spelling error.
* Anyone else fascinated by this revelation? Why didn't anyone tell me we were looking for someone who resembled Hal Holbrook?
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Monday, May 30, 2005
Talking Sunstein-Jenkins
Does anyone else find it intriguing that there is very little disagreement about how wrong Cass Sunstein's thesis is in "The Daily We"? For one, isn't that one of his points -- that groups get together online and agree?
Perhaps this is a testament to how much Sunstein misses the point of what the new media represent. Calling the Internet a "breeding ground for extremism" seems to be a little out of touch with, well, the Internet. Also, this argument stems from pure speculation about what could happen if people shut themselves off to reality. It doesn't actually seem to be happening; I've not yet found any data to defend the assertion that the extreme ends of our political spectrum have encountered recruitment bonanzas. (True, Lyndon LaRouche and his efforts at affixing "Beast-Man" to Dick Cheney's name never really seem to run out of funds or creepy young people for his movement...perhaps we should blame the Internet.) The crazies will be with us for the long haul, and I don't think I'd worry too much about new media disintegrating our public sanity.
Jenkins, on the other hand, successfully reminds us all how the Internet provides our democracy with a much larger public park. Sure, I can avoid an entire side of the debate if I want, but can't I just as easily avoid the political demonstrators? The potential that exists for improving our democracy in the new media overrides any of the worry about the proliferation of "daily me." It makes sense that the vast majority of the class disagree with Sunstein's basic argument and agree wholeheartedly with Jenkins.
Still, Sunstein does raise a crucial concern that I have trouble dismissing: an increased polarization of the political arena. And while I have trouble blaming the Internet, the new media -- even if solely because of the speed and ease of communication -- has sped up and antagonized the process. MoveOn subscribers get a near-daily reinforcement of their ideology; similarly, the RNC regularly prods the inboxes of their followers. There's a reason why political organizers salivate over the rapidly expanding capabilities they have at their fingertips because of new media.
The result is a meaner, more antagonistic marketplace of ideas. It's hard to respect the other side when your inbox tells you everyday how wrong that other side is. Compromise becomes less and less of an option. Did you see how mad Dr. Dobson was after the "Anti-Climactic Compromise of 2005" (term coined here!)
Of course, this didn't begin with the Internet. What Sunstein alludes to, albeit briefly and near the end, is the power that the Internet and new media have to help reduce polarization and self-isolation. It's for these reasons that I'm just not ready to conclude that Sunstein's concerns aren't valid, even if I find Jenkins' argument stronger.
Perhaps this is a testament to how much Sunstein misses the point of what the new media represent. Calling the Internet a "breeding ground for extremism" seems to be a little out of touch with, well, the Internet. Also, this argument stems from pure speculation about what could happen if people shut themselves off to reality. It doesn't actually seem to be happening; I've not yet found any data to defend the assertion that the extreme ends of our political spectrum have encountered recruitment bonanzas. (True, Lyndon LaRouche and his efforts at affixing "Beast-Man" to Dick Cheney's name never really seem to run out of funds or creepy young people for his movement...perhaps we should blame the Internet.) The crazies will be with us for the long haul, and I don't think I'd worry too much about new media disintegrating our public sanity.
Jenkins, on the other hand, successfully reminds us all how the Internet provides our democracy with a much larger public park. Sure, I can avoid an entire side of the debate if I want, but can't I just as easily avoid the political demonstrators? The potential that exists for improving our democracy in the new media overrides any of the worry about the proliferation of "daily me." It makes sense that the vast majority of the class disagree with Sunstein's basic argument and agree wholeheartedly with Jenkins.
Still, Sunstein does raise a crucial concern that I have trouble dismissing: an increased polarization of the political arena. And while I have trouble blaming the Internet, the new media -- even if solely because of the speed and ease of communication -- has sped up and antagonized the process. MoveOn subscribers get a near-daily reinforcement of their ideology; similarly, the RNC regularly prods the inboxes of their followers. There's a reason why political organizers salivate over the rapidly expanding capabilities they have at their fingertips because of new media.
The result is a meaner, more antagonistic marketplace of ideas. It's hard to respect the other side when your inbox tells you everyday how wrong that other side is. Compromise becomes less and less of an option. Did you see how mad Dr. Dobson was after the "Anti-Climactic Compromise of 2005" (term coined here!)
Of course, this didn't begin with the Internet. What Sunstein alludes to, albeit briefly and near the end, is the power that the Internet and new media have to help reduce polarization and self-isolation. It's for these reasons that I'm just not ready to conclude that Sunstein's concerns aren't valid, even if I find Jenkins' argument stronger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
