Politics Online
Politics online provide a vast amount of information to anyone looking for the specific understanding of a political issue or political affiliation. If a person wanted to learn more about their political affiliation, the web provides numerous sites and information to dissect that information into a form that can reach people of all education. Students use the web to guide papers topics and many scholars such as Thomas Hollihan believe, “since its development, the internet has fundamentally reshaped communication” (Hollihan p.199). The only issue that remains is how credible the information on the web really is. Professors in college handout a syllabus for each class and with that syllabus information on credible sources is usually provided, but some assignments require an extended amount of outside resources. Since the first day I stepped on campus Professors have been endlessly drilling in my head the importance of plagiarism and credible sources, but what truly makes a credible source? In reality facts make a credible source though opinions are always given, facts must be presented in order for an opinion to be credible. The issue with today’s advancement in technology pertaining to politics is how to find a credible source when endless amounts of information are provided on the web.
From the first political class I took in college to the present, credible sources online has been a major issue in conducting a paper, blog, or presentation. The immense amount of information on the web can leave more room for error. For example, when a student looks up a specific political party on the web through a search engine, anything affiliated with that specific party is brought on the search engine. This means that personal opinion sites, blogs or even papers written by students in college relating to that political party is presented. Professors guide students with examples of credible sources, but the credible sources given occasionally provide more opinion over fact. Politics has always been a battle of who’s right and whose wrong so when the shift of technology took place it opened the doorway to “political experts”. The political experts that I am referring to are the everyday citizen. The citizen that decided one day to post his/her opinion on the web because they felt their opinion on a specific political matter was important enough for the masses to see. I do not condemn this by any means, each person on this planet has a God given right to express their opinion, but what I do condemn is the use of the web to promote one’s personal image of politics without any prior knowledge of the subject they are discussing. Just recently our class was presented by numerous popular culture clips pertaining to politics. The “Onion” a political satire show described a demonstration in Washington State with numerous people protesting while holding conflicting political picket signs. Each person in the protest displayed their ignorance to rest of world with no other purpose, but to get their conflicting points of view across. The people protesting had no idea why or what they were protesting about. The “Onion” posts numerous stories such as this and it makes one wonder how many sources on the web are backed by fact and not ignorance. I realize that there are still numerous amounts of resources on the web that are credible sources and provide factual statements on political issues. Having said that, the increasing amount of useless knowledge leaves many researchers (students) wondering which source is credible. When using the terms fact or opinion, I am simply implying that many sites on the web provide information on political agendas, but in doing so implement an opinionated feel. Some websites, blogs or personal websites offer more opinionated outlooks to political issues without any factual base to backup statements.
After typing the word “politics online 2009” in the search engine www.google.com 132,000,000 results came forth regarding politics online 2009. Now I know for a fact that there are not 132,000,000 credible sources on the web regarding politics online 2009. The first examples given by the search engine are blogs relating to politics in 2009, but the fourth site to choose from is a site called “Politics Online News, Tools and Strategies”. The first topic on the site relates to how Republicans are using the internet to fight against the Democrats’ overhaul on the health care reform. The story is not even three paragraphs long and talks about how the Republican Party is moving through the web gathering online town hall meetings and using social networking to highlight parts of the Bill that they want to take action on. This availability for the masses to see the Bill is a commodity that past generations never had, but at the same time not every citizen is going to look at the 1,990 pages of the reform and fully understand the issue. I cannot imagine that members of the House dissecting the health care reform plan with everyday citizens online as said in the article, “House Republicans have invited citizens to join them online to pour over the 1,990 pages”. Realistically the amount of citizens being described in this article engaging in this “new communication strategy” is completely out of proportion. The article makes it sound as though all Republicans are embracing this new form of communication and are directly speaking to members of the House. This article was the fourth available site given on the search engine titled “politics online 2009”. The article was posted online by a man named Buzz Webster and is presented in a format to where it looks like a credible source, but further reading the article hidden words and meanings present an image that is clearly not striking all Republicans. The message in which I perceived was that all Republicans are embracing the web as a new form of communication and are interacting with House Republicans to dissect the almost 2,000 paged health care reform plan. Thomas Hollihan in his book, “Uncivil Wars” describes, “Many people worry that the result is a surplus of messages of questionable veracity and a public audience that may not be well equipped to evaluate the quality of the claims that they are reading because they lack familiarity with the new media” (p.207). The message that Hollihan refers to is the authenticity of the messages being presented online to the masses and how some people cannot differentiate fact over opinion. Hollihan continues to write examples of how some scholars argue that quality of internet sources depends on which site to go to. I have no doubt there are still numerous credible sources held accountable for their every word, but just as Hollihan described many people fear on the authenticity of their work and how it is presented.
Credible sources still exist, but the argument in which I am trying to make is that there is an extensive amount of information poured on the web. How to distinguish a credible source from an opinion is getting harder everyday because of the vast amount of accessibility to web, allowing everyday Don Joe/Jane expressing their views. Expressing views is every person’s God given right, but when it waters down credible sources then it becomes an issue. People should be held accountable for their words on the web especially when they try to give a factual story, but in turn overshadow the facts with opinions.
That's how the World Wide Web works though. You don't have to be credible to put something out there for others to see. People have the freedom to do just about whatever they want on the internet. I agree with you that there are millions of people pretending to know what they are talking about out there posting their garbage online. I don't like it much either. But the great thing is that the web allows every individual to obtain hard facts and piece them together in order to form their own opinion. The hard facts come from candidate’s political platforms and the fair analysis of the platforms. However, if you think about it, most people make their decisions based off of the opinions of others. For example, with Obama’s health care reform, there are opinions of whether or not it will be better for America, but the only way we will truly know is if it passes and we get to witness the affect first hand. I think it is hard for the average American to be able to look at a particular stance on a political idea and be able to evaluate that stance without the help of some analysis, which will most likely be biased. If that is a problem, I believe there are plenty of sources out there that provide non biased breakdowns of a certain subject. The key is to finding a source that addresses both sides and spells out the pros and cons. That is the best way to form your own opinion without relying on biased or unreliable sources.
ReplyDeleteSean,
ReplyDeleteI liked your post as it seemed like I had a lot of the same arguments in my post as well. I wanted to point out two comments that you made and give some feedback from my opinion on it.
First, your use of "Our God given right to express our view points." For a believer in faith, I can see how that comment is true and I completely agree with you. On the other hand, I find it ironic how politics try and establish a difference in "church and state." It is almost taboo to try and relate the two, yet everywhere I turn it seems like they are intertwined with one another. Maybe if it’s the “God given” right to express free opinion, maybe it should be a “educated only” right to express opinion on politics?
Second, the comment on “everyone being a political expert.” I enjoyed this comment and I used a similar reference in my own paper. It’s funny because, although I hate to admit it, before this class I knew VERY LITTLE about politics and how important and in depth things were. Yet, here I am, writing posts about my “expert” opinion. Like I said in my post, if an uninformed person ran across my blog and read it, that would only give them a very small idea on the large scale of politics as a whole.
Your right man; there is a lot of JUNK out there! Maybe it is best to HOPE that people will begin realizing this, start looking for more credible sources, and in turn become more educated voters. That will lead to a more educated society which is good for all!
Good words.
The next blog that I would like to respond to is a blog written by Sean Kelley on politics online. Sean starts off his blog by explaining how the internet has changed the way we view politics and find political information as a whole. He states that although the internet is easy ways to find information, many users also have the problem of finding information that is credible. I agree that there is no doubt that the invention of the internet has changed the way we view political information and I agree with Sean’s analysis that the internet often times is not a credible source of information unless you know where to look for it. I have used the internet throughout my life to find all sorts of information and I learned over time how to find credible sources. If you were not experienced with the internet than I could see how it would be easy to believe the information is credible that you’re reading even though it really isn’t. I agree with Sean that if a person knows how to use the internet correctly than it can be an excellent tool for finding political information quickly. I also agree with Sean that it is getting harder and harder everyday to filter through all the crap on the internet and find some credible information. Even though the internet is hard place find credible information I don’t believe that it is too hard. Many of today’s newspapers that people rely on for political information are now online and some are even free. If internet users use these credible web sites, than they will receive the same information that they would have if they had obtained by buying a newspaper. Overall, I agree with Sean that the internet is becoming a harder and harder source to use, but I believe if it is used properly it can be a great resource.
ReplyDelete