Polarizing politics

[Nova Andromeda]

--Where is the "both 1 and 2" response? I don't really buy into the third reason since the internet has also made it much more difficult for the gov. to keep a tight lid on the truth. In addition, the internet has opened up communication like never before and people sought out like minded friends, papers, and news anyhow (i.e., the conservative talk radio).

[Futoque]

I would have added another choice, media consolidation. There are now only about 3 or 4 TV news outlets that broadcast on several channels each. They each want to attract the sort of audience that they think will also attract the most advertisers. Since they have to differentiate themselves they start to show their bias more so they can attract more of their audience. So we end up with Fox and CNN as sort of representatives of each side. And since most people get their news from TV they are fed one of these biased opinions.
A question I would like to as is, how easy is it to detect bias if it is the same as your own?

[Darth Wong]

A question I would like to as is, how easy is it to detect bias if it is the same as your own?

That depends on how you define "bias". Due to the basic irrationality and stupidity of the average person, "bias" is often defined as promoting anything other than the middle position between two competing positions. However, in reality the absence of bias in journalism means that you should try to avoid promoting any position at all, and simply relay as much information as possible to the audience. And part of that means doing investigative work when information is simply handed to you by a political party, rather than merely reciting it verbatim to the audience. But that takes more work, and in an era of 24-hour news networks and massive competition for the market, nobody has time for that.

Think about it: investigative journalism takes time, patience, and effort. Simply reciting each side's party line and then writing up op-ed pieces about them can be done in mere hours.

[Futoque]

Think about it: investigative journalism takes time, patience, and effort. Simply reciting each side's party line and then writing up op-ed pieces about them can be done in mere hours.

That's why I voted 24-hour news channels in the poll.[/quote]

[HyperionX]

Recently the biggest polarization cause is probably the Bush administration. Their policies have been very decisive and their general lack of understanding or even caring for the opinions of others have truely pumped up the polarization. Though I can't say it's without other causes. Bill Clinton was rather a dividing character, though I think that the Republican propangada machine had a big role. IMO the 80s and 90s where the era of the conservatives and right-wing politics. For a democrat to become president during such a time is quite an achievement in hindsight, so I suppose that alone is cause for much of the division. Bush on the other hand looks like he simply dumped fuel onto the fire and continues to do so even when a raging inferno has already ensured from his idiocy, sending polarizations to a new level not seen in perhaps over a hundred years.

[jegs2]

I think the 24-hour news networks have had a lot to do with this polarization, and its my belief that all of the political talk shows are an offspring of the 24-hour news outlets.

[Knife]

None of the above, though they all are factors. The dominion of the two party system is the major cause, imho. To feel like your vote counts, one tends to vote for one of the two major parties. They know this and hence tend to pander to the biggest part of their voters, hence the extremists.

Those of us in the middle are just played lipservice to. But since there are only the two major parties, they tend to 'split' the issues so that you're either on one side of the line or the other on most issues. So basically, when you have only two major choices, and the two parties pander to the base as such, those two choices are the opposite extremes, you get some serious polarization.

[salm]

I would have added another choice, media consolidation. There are now only about 3 or 4 TV news outlets that broadcast on several channels each. They each want to attract the sort of audience that they think will also attract the most advertisers. Since they have to differentiate themselves they start to show their bias more so they can attract more of their audience. So we end up with Fox and CNN as sort of representatives of each side. And since most people get their news from TV they are fed one of these biased opinions.
A question I would like to as is, how easy is it to detect bias if it is the same as your own?

that´s why state sponsored television is a good thing. while being independant from the governement and not influenced by them at all, they recieve money which the government collects from every tv owner. that makes them independant from commercials and therefor independant from getting the highest viewer numbers, so they can broadcast what actually happens, not what the consumer wants to happen.

state sponsored television over here is as unbiased as it can get in the news. they don´t take a stance on the issue they report at all. they simply tell you the facts without comments on e.g. the quality of an action a politican has just done.