Comments on Media Access, 9/27/07

This week’s readings in Media Access encompass further scholarship that attempts to address the conditions that help to contribute to the existing gap in technological access, use, or interpretation. Many ideas are well supported, though there are some ideas I have questions about.

McCrery and Newhagen (2004) examine the relationship between the process sphere and the opinion sphere in political communication. They find a less than surprising situation where participants in the political process, highly engaged citizens, and lobbyists are highly attentive to the media. The review of literature they offer in advance of their report suggests citizens who utilize the Internet for political information or communication never utilize the information gathered or disseminated in public discussion. I do not share their position on the Internet’s role in civic and political discourse.

It is my impression that those who engage in political discussion via Internet-based mediums, like blogs or chat rooms are highly efficacious citizens engaging in political discourse. It may be true that politicians do not read blogs like MoveOn.org (http://www.moveon.org), the Huffington Post (http://huffingtonpost.com), or the Drudge Report (http://www.drudgereport.com) when they cover major political events. McCrery and Newhagen (2004) also state in their study, however, that the staff members of the politicians covered are probably reading these blogs and monitoring what is discussed to keep the policymakers informed. This seems indicative of civic and political discourse using the Internet. By the scholars’ admissions, it seems to connect with policymakers, at least through their staff members.

Another issue in question in the readings is the idea of interactivity and how it can impact political participation. Hofstetter (2004) makes the argument that perceived interactivity is critical in understanding the appeal of political talk radio, noting the respondents rank it behind the telephone and Internet in terms of interactivity. He also makes note of the idea that the process of participating is highly screened and leaves little opportunity for citizens to actually engage directly with the talk show hosts or other political pundits on the show. Thinking about it this way, how does this provide citizens with an interactive experience that truly helps them participate in the discourse? Is it more important to make citizens feel like they participate in the process than to allow them to actually engage in it?

It seems that blogging, with the proper applied effort, is a more effective means of interacting in the political process. Perhaps no one will read it, but citizens are putting their thoughts out there in a forum where other citizens or policymakers can read about their ideas and perhaps use it to inform their perspective.

Hofstetter (2004) makes a very interesting point that the level of interactivity that a person perceives will ultimately hinder their ability to discern the credibility. It seems highly questionable that citizens might possibly take a person like Rush Limbaugh at face value (http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/02/limbaugh/).

Is it more likely to consider, however, that the perception of credibility from listeners has more to do with their political viewpoints and that they are listening to talk show hosts or reading the blogs of writers who they identify with politically and ideologically? Perhaps a selective exposure (Klapper, 1960) approach to research is more appropriate in addressing this issue than perceptions of credibility.