Please Contribute to My Research on Partisan "Echo Chamber" Blogs

B Rational - Monday, June 30, 2008 - 15:22

As follow-up to my comments on this thread http://swordscrossed.org/node/2283, I am setting up this thread for your contributions to a project of mine, any and all of which I'd greatly appreciate.

I may update this diary at a later point, but for now:

I see a big, big problem in America today. There is a downward trend in quality and productiveness of political discourse, driven by increasing partisanship and increasingly selective media consumption and participation, which are mutually reinforcing trends. The result is an increasing tendency to base opinions on distorted information and often flawed logic as well, a hardening of opinions / closing of minds, and a strong tendency to reflexively reject contrary information and arguments rather than engage in critical thought and rational discussion/debate.

The result is not only a deterioriation of our intellectual environment, a harm in itself, but even more importantly suboptimal policy that harms the nation and the world.

While talk radio is obviously a classic example of these dynamics -- this mindset and this conduct -- perhaps nowhere are these dynamics on display more clearly than on partisan "echo chamber" blogs on which people basically ideologically inbreed and cultivate the aforementioned bad habits in thinking and behavior, while developing a general "us vs. them", "good vs. evil" battlefield mindset. Very often when someone shows up with a legitimate challenge to one of the group's partisan talking points, he is met with personal attacks, ridicule, straw men, various forms of evasiveness, and banning by the moderator, usually under some bogus pretext of inappropriate tone or inadequate responsiveness to others, or some other excuse that is at best the blatant application of a double standard.

I have been conducting a personal project involving collecting examples of the above dynamics for analysis.

I ask you to please provide links to threads illustrating the above dynamics, accompanied by whatever explanation and commentary you would be so kind as to provide. Also, links to any articles/columns, books, TV/radio discussion, etc. on this subject would be useful as well.

You can either post them here or email them to me at BrooksBud@aol.com

SwordsCrossed is an oasis in the desert of partisan political blogs. And I think the generally superior discussion/debate on SC is results from SC's format as a meeting place for people of all ideological perspectives. First, because SC is not a partisan echo chamber, diarists and commenters generally can't get away with the kind of garbage tactics (ridicule in lieu of argument, straw men, evasiveness, etc.) that they can in an echo chamber. Second, because SC provides this kind of superior intellectual environment, people who don't want to spend all their time in echo chambers -- because they are more intellectually curious and open-minded and because they desire rational, substantive discussion/debate, stripped of sacrosanct partisan myths, come here.

That's why I am hopeful that I can get some great input from you guys.

THANKS !!
__________________________

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Ok, lemme scroll back through my comment history

on dKos looking for fights...

Here's one on abortion favicon. I was probably still annoyed by this favicon from a few days earlier.

Here's one on Ahnold favicon.

Redstate doesn't have much of a comment tracking function last I checked. Using google, let's see if I can unearth anything juicy...

Well, there's this quarrel about Hackett favicon but that's not really a partisan issue.

Oh, Murtha's comments favicon on Haditha was a heated one, although the indenting is lost from that thread so it's impossible to follow now.

There's a lot more, but I don't have the patience to look for it right now.

__________________________

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

by: Brendan - 2008-06-30 22:30 …………

Some examples

This post of mine on GNN links to a Feministe thread that I think works as an example.

__________________________

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

by: Tlaloc - 2008-07-01 11:57 …………

range of participation

Blogs are more or less participatory. At one extreme there are "blogs" that allow no feedback--there is simply a select set of authors who get to spout their views.

At the other extreme are blog communities -- where comments are the norm, and regualar members are invited to post their own blog essays.

I'd guess that message homogeneity decreases as blogs become more participatory, but at the same time, the "echo chamber" effect may become magnified as the responses validate the message.

 

__________________________

"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas favicon

by: adam ricketson - 2008-07-02 17:20 …………

Thanks very much for the

Thanks very much for the examples (links) so far. Keep 'em comin' !

I look forward to discussing.

by: B Rational - 2008-07-02 18:20 …………

Some other analysis

I noticed this favicon via Andrew Sullivan.

It's probably right up your alley.

__________________________

I never broke the law; I am the law! -- George W. Bush Judge Dredd
I'm listening to... favicon

by: stinerman - 2008-07-02 18:57 …………

Good stuff -- thanks! I'll

Good stuff -- thanks!
I'll contact the authors at some point to discuss.

by: B Rational - 2008-07-02 20:56 ………… parent •

Left wingers read opposing view points more often.

Left wingers read left wing blogs, right wingers read right wing blogs, and very few people read both left wing and right wing blogs. Those few people who read both left wing and right wing blogs are considerably more likely to be left wing themselves; interpret this as you like.

__________________________

In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,

by: Brutus14 - 2008-07-02 23:38 ………… parent •

This is funny. Yes, sad,

This is funny. Yes, sad, too, but funny.

Several weeks ago Mark Thoma, hyperpartisan economics/political blogger of his Economist's View, banned me, after having the practice for a while of selectively deleting my comments (and on some occasions replacing my text with blatant, gross misrepresentations of what I had said in the deleted comments in terms of substance and/or nature, to try to make the deletion seem justified).

Yesterday I received this email from Thoma out of the blue. Please note that the transgressions he implies that I committed fall into two categories: things I hardly did at all, and things I did to a lesser extent than many of his very welcomed regular commenters (who are his fellow hyperpartisans).

Mark Thoma:

Hi:
I am about ready to clear out my comment blocks – as I do occasionally – then rebuild them as necessary.

Here’s what I’m hoping you will do so that we can get along. If you can limit yourself to no more than two comments on any post, that would work for me. Wait a bit to see what people are saying, make your point(s) as needed in a fist comment. Then be patient, wait for people to react (that will be hard, but I do it with most every post so it can be done), then have a second comment that responds to the reactions to the first comment. This means you probably won’t get the last word, after your second comment people may respond again, but that’s how it will go.

A few other things too. Please comment on just a couple of posts a day – not two comments on each and every post just because you can. Focus on one or two things instead.

Acerbic comments will be deleted. Period. And I’m not a big fan of external links to libertarian or right wing think tanks, etc. Speak for yourself, and don’t try to divert my audience elsewhere.

It will seem unfair, the rules vary by person and I don’t have the time or inclination to explain why, I’m just trying to find a way for you to participate without my reacting by banning you again. But certainly personal attacks will bring that result. If a comment gets deleted, take a hint instead of trying the same thing again, and move on to something else (complaining to me by email will try my patience).

If you can do that, maybe we can get along. If not, then it will go back to how it is now, doesn’t matter to me. You’ve been persistent, way more so than most, so let me be clear about one thing – I will control my site as I wish.

One final thing, comments like “I’d like to say more but I’m restricted here,” or any reference to being moderated will bring automatic deletion. If you are tempted to complain about the restrictions you are under, then please think again – a couple of times and I will lose patience and just ban you.

That’s not an extensive list of do’s and don’ts, just what I can think of, but if you use good judgment it won’t be a problem. If you have doubts – and you know what I’m asking – just don’t do it.

I have more comments everyday then I can keep track of, and I just don’t have extra time to devote to particular individuals. So though it seem impatient and intolerant, I really have no choice but to terminate quickly if it starts to take a lot of my time (like this email…). So please don’t try and test the boundaries, I just don’t have time for games.

No need to respond – as I said, I can hardly keep up as it is… Let’s see if this works. If not, as I said, no big deal to me, I’ll just ban again and it’s against my better judgment to even make this offer anyway, but I’m willing to give it a try.
Mark

I replied:

You've got to be kidding. So I can participate, as long as I do so with one hand tied behind my back and, in effect, let others get in the last word all the time, not matter what they say about me or my arguments or something they are grossly misrepresenting as my arguments. And this because of what, supposedly? Because of what supposed transgression(s)? Other than presenting arguments that were legitimate challenges to one or two of your "side's" cherished talking points, I did nothing different than many of your welcomed regulars, and in fact I was always MORE interested in substantive, rational discussion/debate than were many of them. As I know and you may know (I'm uncertain to what extent you are insincere vs. just hopelessly extremely biased), you banned me because I was interfering with the hyperpartisan propoganda of yours and of your regulars, and you place a much higher priority on this propogandizing than you do on education and legitimate intellectual exploration/discussion/debate of public policy and economic issues. You are pathetic, all the more so because you are an educator, at least nominally.

Mark Thoma replies:

I only read the first few words of the first line – I don’t really care what you have to say.

If you want to participate, do so, if not, then don’t.

Please don’t write again.

I couldn't resist, particularly since I had already written the email below:

In my prior email I forgot to reply directly to a few of your gems:

Re: "make your point(s) as needed in a fist comment. Then be patient, wait for people to react (that will be hard, but I do it with most every post so it can be done), then have a second comment that responds to the reactions to the first comment."

Yeah, that's what I did on just about every occasion on which I commented on your site. On only a small percentage of occasions did I post more than one comment in a row in an exchange with someone, as opposed to a back-and-forth, one-for-one exchange of comments. And some of your regulars post consecutive comments more frequently.

Re: "Please comment on just a couple of posts a day – not two comments on each and every post just because you can. Focus on one or two things instead."

Again, your implication is simply, clearly erroneous.
Perhaps you have me confused with someone else (perhaps with some of your regulars).

Re: "Acerbic comments will be deleted. Period."
Hmm, apparently that's a "for-Brooks-only" standard.

Re: "And I’m not a big fan of external links to libertarian or right wing think tanks, etc. Speak for yourself, and don’t try to divert my audience elsewhere."
What the heck are you talking about?? Where are you getting this stuff??

Re: "One final thing, comments like “I’d like to say more but I’m restricted here,” or any reference to being moderated will bring automatic deletion. If you are tempted to complain about the restrictions you are under, then please think again – a couple of times and I will lose patience and just ban you."

Of course. Don't say anything about what the man behind the curtain is doing.

by: B Rational - 2008-07-25 10:42 …………

UPDATE: I emailed Mark Thoma

UPDATE:

I emailed Mark Thoma to let him know about my comment above. I wrote:

FYI, you are quoted at http://swordscrossed.org/node/2285#comment-90623, followed by commentary.

Thoma immediately emails me back -- and remember, this is the guy who told me in his last email not to email him, that he didn't read my email and wouldn't read any further emails, and that he didn't care what I had to say.

Thoma writes:

So? You get banned just about every place you visit – or told to cool it – when everybody is telling you the same thing, it’s time for a little self-reflection. You should explain to people why you get banned so much, but you don’t understand so that’s probably not possible.

...I still haven’t read what you wrote – I asked you not to email me and I meant it...

Maybe I’ll post something about you? Nah, you aren’t worth it, not even close…and you like negative attention, that’s part of the problem...

You seem to have some problems playing with the other kids. I hope you find a way to work that out – things will be easier for you.

Interesting. I hear this from hyperpartisans on partisan echo chamber blogs fairly often. It apparently does not even occur to them that the reason (or at least the main reason) I get a hostile reaction from several regulars on partisan echo chamber blogs is because...you guessed it...I don't play along! I challenge the premises and logic behind their positions and cherished talking points, and I press them to respond directly, rationally and substantively to the questions/arguments I've raised rather than just responding with straw men, non sequiturs, personal attacks, and assorted irrelevancies and evasive tactics, and that approach just ain't cool with them. So when someone like me comes along, they circle the wagons and start firing, rather than engage in substantive, productive dialogue with me. And when it comes to this dynamic, the folks at RedState and other right-wing blogs on which I've participated are like "separated at birth twins" with the folks on the left-wing blogs. And then a hyperpartisan, censoring propogandizer like Mark Thoma says essentially "Hey, if you're getting the same reaction everywhere, it must be YOU". Well, for lack of a better analogy (and just to use the first one that popped into my head), I wouldn't be too popular in either the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany -- or on blogs maintained by either, if such existed. So I guess that must mean the problem would be me, not those systems and thinking or individuals maintaining and enforcing those systems and thinking.

These folks really need to get out more, as in leave their echo chambers, and do so not just to find one of their counterparts on the other side of the partisan divide so they can hurl talking points past one another, but to actually listen, consider opposing arguments, make a good faith effort to answer questions and address arguments directly, and thus to engage in real discussion/debate of various important issues facing our nation and world.

(Oh, and I edited out a few lines of Thoma's email -- where you see elipses -- just to give him a taste of his own medicine, not that he said anything worthwhile anyway)

by: B Rational - 2008-07-25 15:10 ………… parent •