Politics and the internet
by Mischa Gelman
(published 3/28/00)

   The internet, as the media loves to tell us ad infinitum, is changing
the landscape of America. The focus, especially in the last two years, has
been on how it is changing the economic picture of the US, and little to
nothing is said about the effect on our politics. While the net can be a
good or bad forum for political debate, I think too often it tends to the
negative side. Here's why.
   The good for politics should be discussed first, as it is important as
well. The internet can be a great source of political information,
offering nearly immediate updates on legislation or current events. This
information is available from all kinds of sources - without leaving your
seat or flipping through another ten magazines, you get the
environmentalist view, the industry view, the socialist view, the
capitalist view, the opinion of labor, the liberal view and the
conservative view. One can discuss political issues with people from other
places or groups which you might not otherwise have contact with. Thanks
to the pgh.opinion newsgroup, for instance, I have found out lots more
about libertarians, from plenty of debates on a range of issues, and
thanks to the mailing list of the Black Radical Congress, I can see how
they view every hot topic (and even what they see as hot topics). For
those approaching things objectively, then, the internet offers great
potential for enhancing one's understanding of politics. By allowing for
online petitions, printable form letters or action alerts to email
officials, one can more easily express their view, strenghtening the
democratic element of our republic.
   Can any flip side be so bad as to outweigh these virtues? After years
of following political discussion on the 'net, my answer is a hearty and
resounding YES! Too often pgh.opinion or pa.politics becomes merely a
forum for one group or another to get on a soapbox and proclaim their
view, without honest consideration for whatever point the other side is
making. This will lead many, perhaps most, threads to break down into
flame wars or people talking past one another in pushing their view. Not
seeing others face-to-face or even hearing their voice makes it easier to
lambast someone's opinion without thought of the person on the other end. 
Close-mindedness is strongly encouraged as well. Political web sites or
mailing lists tend to more ideological extremes than the mainstream media. 
This solves two sinister purposes. First of all, by reading the views of
like-minded people, some become convinced that their beliefs are more
mainstream than they truly are. While most Americans can (right or wrong) 
support gun control, the libertarians who hang out in libertarian forums
start seeing their 'total access' to guns opinion as mainstream. Even
though most folks see Social Security, public education and Medicare as
mainstream, I've seen libertarians condemn these as things only accepted
by the far left. This shows a dangerous disconnect with reality, a big
danger of politics on the net. The second flaw is part and parcel of the
first, that people will gravitate to similar opinions. How many will seek
the full picture? How many read both the conservative NewsMax site
(www.newsmax.com) and the liberal Commondreams (www.commondreams.org)?
When reading the paper, one comes across Robert Scheer and George Will,
Charles Krauthammer and Bob Herbert, automatically getting both sides. On
most political web sites, you get only one side of the story, and while
most newsgroups are more varied in the range of opinions, many minds are
just as closed. These flaws will increase extremism and close-mindedness
as the 'net is used more and more for politics. Unless you're coming with
an open mind, stick to getting your political news from more traditional
sources. And even if you do use the internet to broaden your political
knowledge, complement what you see there with those same, more balanced
and objective sources.
   Of course, the importance of factuality also becomes an issue. Here an
open mind can be a problem, if you too willingly accept all you see on the
computer. While the well-known lies (like the whole tax on email junk
that's been circulated in just about 'net forum) have been exposed, we
must always be skeptical about whether something is factual. Unlike in the
world of newspapers, books and magazines, there is little emphasis on
ensuring truth, and false quotes and their ilk are very common. As Sam
Smith wrote in the Great American Political Repair Manual, "Treat
information from unknown cybersources with the same skepticism you'd give
someone on the street trying to sell you a gold watch just pulled from his
pocket." This worry about fact merely furthers the case against relying
upon the internet for your political information.

   Mischa Gelman just knows there'll be hundreds of books on this topic in
a few years and wonders how others will perceive the situation.