When I was new to this country, C-Span fascinated me for its uniqueness—it provided politics in the raw without filters of any kind, and offered me multiple perspectives that I could not have ever otherwise followed. It even seemed rather quaint that the channel would list separate phone numbers for Republican and Democratic viewers to call in with their comments and questions.Whether it was from C-Span or from other sources, the old days at least held out a possibility of conversations across political or religious lines and about the issues of the day, both profound and trivial.
However, just as the common water cooler has been replaced by individualized water bottles, news sources and discussion forums have also become customized. Thus, it is now easy to remain within our own narrowly defined identities, whatever they might be and, thereby, shut ourselves from anything that does not correspond to our views of the world.
Professor Cass Sunstein wrote about this rapidly emerging trend back in 2001—eons ago in the modern digital timelines! Sunstein, currently the Director of the office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote then that one of the vices of the exponentially expanding modern communications involved “the risk of fragmentation, as the increased power of individual choice allows people to sort themselves into innumerable homogeneous groups, which often results in amplifying their preexisting views.”
Empirical evidence confirms this. In a recent research paper, Shanto Iyengar of Stanford and Kyu Hahn of UCLA note that “although an infinite variety of information is available, individuals may well limit their exposure to news or sources that they expect to find agreeable. Over time, this behavior is likely to become habituated so that users turn to their preferred sources automatically no matter what the subject matter.”
Therefore, if at all, I am surprised that it has taken this long to loudly recognize that modern communication technologies that feed us with more news than we could possibly digest, have also made it remarkably easy for us to choose our own filters.
Fragmentation in the news media will then be a logical outcome in such an information world. As a matter of fact, this is already the case in the part of India
In the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, the two main political parties are represented through their leaders Jayalalitha and Karunanidhi. Interestingly enough, they both also own stakes in two television cable channels. The channel “JayaTV” is aligned with Jayalalitha, while “SunTV” is pro-Karunanidhi. These channels offer the usual entertainment staples of dramas and movies. But, it is during the regional news programs that their political slant becomes obvious. Because Karunanidhi is in power now, JayaTV is forever critical of the government, and the roles reverse when the political fortunes shift!
It was equally fascinating that the audience is also fully aware that the news from these two television channels is not unbiased. Thus, news items that are highly critical or laudatory are then appropriately scaled by the viewers!
Perhaps then all we need in America is a similar sort of full-disclosure of political affiliations from “news” organizations in America
Now, as Sunstein argued eight years ago, such fragmentation might not advance the cause of healthy democratic participation. Instead of having constructive conversations where differences are articulated, we then end up with “shoutfests” where the objective is not to listen to differing views but to drown out the opposing voices.
If only Faux Noose would add a permanent full-disclosure of sorts, then it can easily preclude the kind of satire it provokes and receives from the Daily Show :)
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Parent Company Trap | ||||
| ||||
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Terror Bunker 5200 | ||||
| ||||
No comments:
Post a Comment