X4mr has a throw-away comment in this thread on Arizona8th where he essentially claims bloggers and the issues they blog about don't have much effect on the general voting populace.
I find myself agreeing with him.
By-and-large, it seems those who blog about politics, or regularly read and comment on political blogs, are those who are already active followers of the political opera. By-and-large, we have already chosen up sides and enter into our debates with positions already held. That doesn't mean we are immune to persuasion, but it does make it less likely.
Meanwhile, the voting populace, which in general does not get overly interested in matters politic until the time to vote actually draws near (if then) is generally not aware of the existence of blogs yet. There are exceptions, of course - tech savvy types who already follow blogs to keep up on, say, the latest music news may think to peruse what is available in the form of political blogs when their thoughts turn to (I hope) informing themselves before they vote. Most voters, though, don't possess that savvyness.
At the national level, blogs are starting to gain influence. A recent example is the hoopla related by lefty blogs over Chris Matthews' recent comments vis-a-vis Hillary Clinton, said hoopla eventually leading to Matthews apologizing on-air. Still, while such incidents are becoming more common, I would still assert they remain notable because of their rarity.
At the local level, or at least the local level in Arizona, we are all largely talking to walls.
(And yes, x4mr, in case you ever read this ... since I suspect that last phrase will jog a memory for you ... I did write that phrase initially over on the DailyKos thread last year, posted as ChessGuy ... I can't tell you how much amusement I got out of you subsequently referencing it.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
agree. Although, I think CNN or FOX was referencing blogs a few days ago to get the underlying sentiment in respect to party activists...
So that was you!
I quoted that expression repeatedly and still do from time to time.
Those threads back then were really something with those vitriolic Latas Giffonators. I never did figure out who KMBlue was.
This year will be very different.
Regarding influence of blogs, I think it is increasing. As you said, we almost never change each other's views, but we do clarify and refine our arguments as the dialog progresses.
Also, and significant, is that the press reads the blogs. Not sure about your place, but I know for a fact that the local press reads Framer, Tedski, Michael Bryan, and my place REGULARLY.
I don't know how much a blog can help in terms of promotion, but they can hurt. A well written, rational, and accurate blog post that hits a candidate well should not be ignored by a campaign.
Also, anonymity cripples influence. I have no problem with anonymous bloggers. I love your insights, stories, and comments here and at other places, but I can promise that you are capped in a certain way, no matter how creative and insightful, if readers don't know who you are.
George Tuttle in my opinion was a doof, but he used his real name in the last campaign, and people including the Giffords campaign read his place every day.
It's the blogosphere. I like that people are free to participate in whatever fashion they choose, even the anonymi that make it impossible to know if you're talking to the same person.
Post a Comment