Blog 7. Democratic news Vs Republican news

It is never easy to answer whether media supporting one party over the other is good or bad. We have been discussing about people’s tendency to seek out and take in news which they feel comfortable with. They listen and watch to what they agree with. Given that, my answer to “if republicans get their political news from one place and democrats get their news from somewhere else, is this good or bad” is No, I do not believe it is bad that each party gets their news from different places. However I do believe that it certainly matters when people do not seek out opposing viewpoint. If each party seek out not only their supporting argument but also opposing viewpoint then they can fully understand entire situation from both sides. Following is a quote by Sacha Zimmerman from MSNBC’s News Republic’s, implying that both Democratic and Republic parties are doing the worst job of coping or comprehending both sides of views, and obviously that doesn’t happen because they never switch channels and care about what the opponent news has to tell.

“I am not so thrilled about this trend toward partisan networks and news. By all means we should have progressive and conservative commentators and analysts, but is there no room for argument between the two? Where have all the iconoclasts gone? With this split in the networks and a near perfect red-blue divide nationwide, it seems that we are more and more retreating to our comfortable trenches and refusing to acknowledge anything but spite, paranoia, and conspiracy theory when it comes to the other side.”

Majority of people might agree that partisanship in media is bad, and I cannot say it isn’t. Unfortunately, however, people are inevitably biased and that is no exception for media and journalists. That’s how it works and how it’s always been. Does objectivity always the best way of ensuring accuracy? I believe not. As we’ve talked about in class on Tuesday, objectivity in media can be reflected as “copy-and-past” reporting. It lacks of investigation and verifying the facts. However, I believe a journalist in partisanship is more eligible to provide accurate guide line and help the citizens since the journalist have to be more accurate and sufficient in evidence to support his argument.

Blog 7: News Gathering

With the fragmentation of news gathering, it’s apparent that people who strongly identify with a political party tend to gather their news from specialized sources that cater to their political philosophies. For instance, those with liberal leanings tend to gather news from these folks:

While those with more conservative standing may get their news from one of these fine specimens of political banter:

While still others with, say, more Libertarian leanings will follow what this institute puts forth as relevant news:

Regardless of from which stereotypical political party sympathizing news source one gathers news, there are pros and cons to the fact that people tend to watch news programs that align with their political philosophies. For rational political news watchers, getting one’s news from a specific source will give that person a thorough understanding of a specific viewpoint pertaining to a given issue. For instance, if someone with liberal tendencies watches MSNBC news coverage of the healthcare debate or the dissolution of Wisconsin unions, that person will have a fairly deep understanding of the liberal viewpoint of those issues. This, in turn, can lead to lively and well processed arguments and debates with those who do not hold similar viewpoints and are, presumptively, gathering news from a source with a different viewpoint. The key here is rationality within the individual, however. One who gets one’s information from a specialized source must consider that the source from which they are gathering information is biased, may be misinformed or flat out wrong, and should consider other viewpoints if it turns out that the information one has does not back up an argument.

Another pro of gathering sources is that fragmentation breeds dissent, which can bring about compromise to advance a cause or manage an issue. That there are so many different channels concerning political news means that people are taking sides and holding opinions on issues important to the public discourse, implying that compromise and debate are necessary elements in terms of managing an issue relevant to the public discourse. Thus, rather than blindly accepting what the media says is the end all be all in terms of public discourse, people can argue and attempt to persuade others in terms of the “rightness” of an issue, which (ideally) can lead to solutions to an issue that may not be noticed if everyone was like minded and consistent in from where news was gathered.

However, a con with these vast array of choices is a lack of consistency. Because there are so many sources from which to gather news, the question of “What is really going on here?” becomes complex and sometimes muddled. If news sources covering the same topic provide entirely different “facts” on the matter, a viewer can become confused or disillusioned with the sources, assuming that if the same story has two conflicting sets of facts, one side must be lying and thus, will be forever considered untrustworthy. This can breed cynicism toward news sources, which may result in people leaving the political news arena altogether, reducing the number of voices on an issue that can be heard overall.

In short, it does matter that there are many different news sources with different political leanings that appeal to specific ideologies. This can be a good thing if political news organizations and participants are rational in their consumption of the news and are willing to engage in logical debate on an issue. However, it can be bad if irrationality, stubbornness and pure emotion guide the consumption of news, as this can lead to simple shouting matches and a departure of voices from the political issues arena due to cynicism over the sources’ credibility.

Blog 7: Political News

Chapter 4 of  D. Garber’s book Media Power in Politics (6th Edition) talks about the effects of new media on political information. One of the biggest effects was fragmentation of audiences. Gurevitch, Coleman, and Blumler (authors of this section of the book) define fragmentation as finding political information that reinforces your political ideas and beliefs. With this concept we are lead to believe that virtually every person can find some sort of political information (whether it is a blog, newscast, or newspaper) that conforms to their political schema. The Pew Research Center’s finding have also indicated that fragmentation may be occurring in our society.  The 2009 study showed that Fox News was more often viewed by those who considered themselves a Republican and CNN was viewed more often by those who considered themselves to be a Democrat.  Gurevitch et, al also state that the recent rise in partisanship could be largely attributed to the media fragmentation.

Now the question arises: is fragmentation a good thing? Does is matter if Democrats get their news from one source and Republicans get their news from another source? The answer seems so obvious. No, political fragmentation is not good. Yes, it does matter if one party is getting their information from one source and the other party is getting their information from another source.

This situation seems to parallel the classic scenario that we all faced as children. On the playground, two of your best friends get into an argument. One of your friends confides in you and tells you their side of the story. The other friend involved in the argument confides in another person. More often than not, when you are asked to decide which friend is in the wrong, you are going to choose the one who didn’t confide in you. You choose to believe that they are in the wrong because you were only told half of the story. Virtually your opinions is skewed because you do not have the full view of whats going on.

This same childhood mentality is happening in today’s society. When one political party chooses to get their information from one source and the other political party get their information from another source, they are never going to agree. When we get two different accounts of what is happening we aren’t going to agree. The fact of the matter is there is one story. Those who are more conservative are going to report on it one way and those what are liberal are going to report on it another way. When one fails to look at the other sources of information, they merely become ignorant to the issue.

The outcome of this fragmentation is a decline in partisanship. When leader have a jaded view of issues they are less likely to work with the other side to come to a solution that appeases them both. When partisanship fails, it takes longer for things to get done because the parties cannot come to a solution. Consequently, when things in the political scheme don’t get completed the citizens get angry. This is a vicious cycle that seemingly never ends.  The advances in new media outlets may have given us more options for the political information but at the same time it has almost hindered us by creating this fragmentation that is causing fragmentation.