The answers my friends- are blowin’in the wind….

In the abstract of his article, Matheson presents the idea that web blogs are forcing journalism to adapt to new contexts.  He goes on to say throughout the article that web blogs are moving us away from the more traditional authority of the news- an argument that I agree with, but with the caveat that blogs do so at our own peril and leave us susceptible to the quelling and sharing of the divergent views and ideas that this country was founded on.  The ability of blogs to hyperlink to a myriad of different sources – a feature that Matheson credits as being one of the movers away from the “old journalism” can also be a form of reverse censorship that contains a person within a fixed set of ideas and opinions. 

As the elite sources of news erode and more and more people turn to weblogs for their information our society has a “growing power to “filter” what they see,” (Sunstein, 58).  Sunstein argues in his article that “as a result of the Internet and other technological developments, many people are increasingly engaged in the process of personalization, limiting their exposure to topics and points of view of their own choosing. They filter in, and out, with unprecedented powers of precision,” (Sunstein, 58).  One could dismiss Sunstein by saying that all news is filtered- a point that Matheson concedes in his article as well when he says that although the Guardian was an online blog outside of the constraints of the printed news- its editors were still in effect “gatekeepers” who controlled what news was hyperlinked on the site.   

Despite this, there is great value in Sunstein’s point, especially as younger generations turn away from newspapers completely in favor of online news sources- including blogs.  Online blogs present a unique and new danger because they “can reduce the importance of the “public sphere” and of common spaces in general.  One of the important features of these spaces is that they tend to ensure that people will encounter materials on important issues, whether or not they have specifically chosen the encounter,” (Sunstein, 58).  Watching a news broadcast in one’s family room enables discussion of what is being broadcast- similarly reading a printed newspaper at least provides an editorial page where many different views can be expressed- on the contrary online blogs enable people to immerse themselves into like minded content to the point where they may lose perspective on the other side of the argument- or become so entrenched and bolstered by the numerous others who share that opinion that they cease to see different opinions as even viable.    

Sunstein’s point that chance encounters with content not on an individual’s prescribed list of topics is “central to democracy and even to freedom itself,” (Sunstein, 58) might be overstating it a bit, but I do agree that as more and more society moves online there needs to be a through examination of where and how people get their “news.”  I put the word news in quotes because really the advent of the blog calls into question the very word.   

In a world where everyone can have a blog almost instantly and begin reporting on the “news” who are the journalists and what is still “real”?  This point is addressed in Matheson’s article with the idea of writing for a public verses writing to a public.  Writing for a public implies some sort of accountability and standards- while writing to a public via a blog is no different than a Puritan sermon from the 17^th century- I can say whatever message I want as the content is based solely on my opinion and what I am trying to persuade my audience of.  This is a danger compounded by the fact that blogs link to other blogs as their source of credibility rather then to established newspapers as was the case with the Guardian – a practice which only serves to reinforce the opinion I am expressing on my blog.           

If people begin to turn away from printed news and the public sphere into a continued practice of receiving only the news they want to read Sunstein cautions that, “the implication is that groups of people, especially if they are like-minded, will end up thinking the same thing they thought before—but in more extreme form, and sometimes in a much more extreme form,” (Sunstein, 58).  Propaganda is a perfect example of this in that it plays on prejudices and beliefs that are already held by an individual only it amplifies them and repeats them until the individual is willing to express outwardly feelings that they only believed inwardly before- and even more alarming – act on them.            

The discrediting and demise of what Matheson calls “the symbolic power of news language within journalism” and “the institutional claim to authority which surrounds news practice” (Matheson, 446) enables people with individual agendas to perpetuate their ideas so that they begin to fill this void of truth and through the self contained world of hyperlinked blogs- enable people to live completely immersed in like minded ideas- thereby eliminating the free flow of thought and innovative thinking that spurs the on-going dialogue of America. 

As a foot note to this- I found it interesting that Matheson sites Sunstein on page 459, but doesn’t in my mind adequately address his argument- instead he says that “Part of the web blog’s appeal to critics and users appears to be that it has the potential to disrupt such cognitive structures” meaning that the many links etc. will prevent people who receive the “daily me” updates from staying only concerned with their world view- but I would argue that if the web blog is only linking to other sites that also reflect its own content then this is still happening.  While the article uses the Guardian web blog as its case study which does in fact link to sites that provide different content and ideas- there are many other sites, especially since Matheson’s article was written that do exactly what Sunstein was describing.