3 ms·
You are absolutely right here on the government point, but I think that fact cuts a different way. Without newspapers to make up people's minds for them on who
by temphn 14y ago
You are absolutely right here on the government point, but I think that fact cuts a different way. Without newspapers to make up people's minds for them on who to vote for, they will now need to actually read position papers and make an informed decision on their own (or else refrain from voting as is their right). Or start their own blog if they truly care.
News coverage has a tremendous effect on public opinion (it can be argued that the media in 1992 was responsible for the LA riots), so decentralization of opinion means that journalists have much less power to decide which candidates are "acceptable".
[Regarding Syria, they did cut off their internet connection, but I don't believe the centralized news media has done a very good job of reporting what's actually going on in the Middle East in general. I trust Google Translate Arabic + first-party sources more than Judith Miller; YMMV.]
- tptacek 14y agoWhat position papers? What information are they going to use? You are very likely in a state senate district with very stable party identification. How do you know who to support in a primary? It costs money to get this information out to people, and blogs are not doing it very effectively. Do you really believe that but for an internet connection, Syrian bloggers would be outdoing Marie Colvin, who died to bring the story back for the Sunday Times? Based on what evidence?