One might argue that this effect can be countered by political ads because it is harder to selectively watch advertising. I would disagree because it is even easier for a Republican to dismiss an ad for a Democratic candidate as propaganda and visa versa than it is to dismiss news reporters as promoting an agenda.
This dilemma highlights the importance of newspapers. Larger newspapers like the Washington Post and New York Times have to appeal to a wider audience than new media. Although they might still lean one way or another on the political spectrum they don't lean as far. As Paul Starr points out, people frequently read the newspaper for sports or travel but still gain some political knowledge by glancing at the front page. If a citizen reads the newspaper, even just the headlines, they will be exposed to more dissenting opinions than if they are getting their news from a polarized source.
While reading newspapers increases the likelihood that a person will be exposed to dissenting views, that fact remains that people actively try to avoid dissenting opinions. This is a major reason for the success of new media over traditional news sources. I think that the only way to combat this issue is to create a cultural norm of debate and deliberation when it comes to politics.
I definitely agree with your point that political ads do not adequately expose people to differing views. In fact, I think they contribute to the partisanship and reinforce ideological lines. Many of the ads seem to be simply focusing on the negative aspects of opponents instead of informing the voter of the candidate's opinions or views. Therefore, a Republican watching a Democratic candidate's ad might learn nothing about the Democrat only that he/she is not corrupt if it's an attack ad. Even if the ad is positive, one would still not learn very much since it's only a 30 second clip. They certainly do not learn enough to really judge the merits of the argument since there is no background or evidence presented to support the candidate's claims normally.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that it's very easy to be dismissive of a party after watching some of the campaign ads. Some of the ads are simply ridiculous (see Joe Manchin's add on Cap and Trade or Christine O'Donnell's "I'm not a witch" add)and it makes the politicians look bad regardless of whether or not you support them. It makes it far too easy to deem the other side unintelligent or illogical without examining their side in depth to make an informed decision. I definitely think that this is not good for a democracy.
At least with newspapers, even if they do lean to a side, one still gets some background on the subject. The arguments are more thorough and not limited to sound bites. Additionally, there's a chance that there will be an AP or Reuters stories thrown in to newspapers (especially smaller local ones) and both sources are generally pretty neutral. It's definitely a tricky issue and it will be interesting to see if people continue to only follow sources that confirm their opinions or maybe one day they'll grow sick of all the partisanship.