Comments on: political blogging

By: Arthur

Arthur — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 11:16:26 +0000

Hi everyone! I just wanna say that politics is a favorite subject matter of all people�from youth to elders. When it comes to the topic of Politics, each individual is anxious to speak his mind and so are squabbles that are ready to explode. For all we know, Swiss politics has been silent in the global village; whereas U.S. and Asian politics are so alive. On the contrary, Swiss politics is also an extraordinary hotspot of debate and a favorite past time of each opinionated Swiss inhabitant.

By: Wainer

Wainer — Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:10:55 +0000

Good point David. But I think nowhere in the post I mentioned free-ness from traditional power! On the contrary, blog hierarchies stratify over traditional media hierarchies, and traditional players yield considerable power in the blogosphere. Neither I said, nor did Tim for that matter, that Joe Blogg’s site is as likely to be read as, say, iBBC fora. Political blogging require skills and dedication; however readership is determined by an interplsy of factors _including_ peer review, acquired reputation, links in links out, serac engine results etc which can be pursued without a traditional media base. I would say blog benefit from what Margett’s identified as the three main incentive for the growth of the ‘virtual’ party: nodality (that is networking), competition and low access costs.

Thanks for the refs, I read the first, I’ll chase the second.

By: David Brake

David Brake — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:43:23 +0000

Why should weblog-based political dialogues be completely free of the usual kinds of power-based bias, Wainer? If Joe Bloggs posts something interesting on his unknown blog is it really as likely to be read and discussed as if Harry of Harry’s Place did the same thing?

At least two readings about the issue of power in computer mediated communications spring to mind - Postmes, T., R. Spears and M. Lea (1998) “Breaching or Building Social Boundaries? Side-Effects of Computer-Mediated Communication”, Communication Research, 25 pp. 689-715. and Crawford, A. (2002) “The Myth of the Unmarked Speaker” in Critical Perspectives on the Internet, (Elmer, G. ed.) Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Md., pp. 89-104.

The abstract for the former says:

“Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is sometimes heralded for its power to break down social boundaries, and to liberate individuals from social influence, group pressure, and status and power differentials that characterize much face-to-face interaction. We review research conducted within the framework of the social identity model of deindividuation effects (SIDE) demonstrating that this is not always the case. When communicators share a common social identity, they appear to be more susceptible to group influence, social attraction, (self) stereotyping, gender-typing and discrimination in anonymous CMC. While CMC gives us the opportunity to traverse social boundaries, paradoxically, it can also afford these boundaries greater power, especially when they define self and group identity.”