Maybe Brooks was right.

Have we reached an age where we lack fact?

When a blog like huffington post can publish as prominently as the NY Times, when anyone can photoshop any image, when anyone can edit together any clips to make nearly anyone say nearly anything, are we living in a fact-less world? This question of course has already been posed by folks smarter than I.

But I wonder if you can't take the logic of that question and apply it to Brooks' thesis. He posits essentially there are demographic blocks that hold immovable beliefs because of their social, ethnic, and educational backgrounds. In a society that's far less homogeneous than our parents and certainly our grandparents' demographic groups and by extension voting bloc's are creating their own reality.

If I am a staunch liberal, I can get my news from the NY Times, watch Keith Olberman, and read books by Al Gore. Sources like the evening news may portray stories I don't like or agree with, but I can chalk it up to knowing that a particular source is owned by Rupert Murdoch, or that they are being run by the corporate media.

If I'm a staunch conservative, I can read the Wall Street Journal, watch Sean Hannity, and read books by Bill O'Reilly. Source like the evening news may portray stories I don't like or agree with, but I can chalk it up to corporate media being slaves to the liberal bias.

But in the age of the internet it's far worse than that. I can ensconce myself in ideological blogs and podcasts, the echo-chamber effect. And when empirical evidence begins to pop up that my ideology or political leader might not be right, I can simply recreate reality through unfounded stories and minority reports. We see this currently with the public reaction to the Bush Administration, no one can defend the results this administration as wrought, so the Conservative blogosphere has simply tapped into the idea that W was not conservative enough. And the liberals in congress forced his hand.

This modern media landscape is having a profound effect in the Democratic Primary. Barack Obama is simply elitist. A man raised by a single mother, who only paid off his law school degree a few years ago is out of touch. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton who lived in the Governor's mansion for 12 years and the White House for 8, and has since made $109 million is somehow a woman of the people. Why? Because that's the narrative particular demographic groups have set up for themselves. And in this new media landscape, opinion matters as much as fact, perception as much as reality, and no one has to acknowledge something they don't believe.

The Internet for all it's power to share information, might actually be encouraging people to pull further into their demographic an ideological enclaves than explore others.

Political Blogs Lean...Libertarian?

So, a friend of mine asked me last night, since she is not a Democrat, why I asked her to join our "wacky commie liberal fan club" and read this blog. Now, though this blog tends to lean a little to the Left, I would contend that we have our share of conservative/moderate posts. At the same time, serendipitously, research revealed this morning that blogs in general actually are not predominantly liberal...they're Libertarian!

According to the BIGresearch Simultaneous Media Survey, Political blogs are becoming increasingly common, especially in this election year, where 24.6% of registered voters say they regularly or occasionally blog. Political affiliation of regular/occasional Bloggers look like this in 2008:

• 37.6% of Libertarians regularly/occasionally blog
• 26.9% of Democrats
• 25.7% of Independents
• 22.9% Republicans

So this says a few things to me. Firstly, we at Thinking About Policy Over Politics (or ThinkPOP as I like to sometimes call it) are actually part of a significant movement of people who are using the Internet for the other POP: "politics over porn." It also means that though Republicans sit at the bottom of the list, pair them with Libertarians and the political blogosphere leans decidedly toward the conservative(ish). So, are blogs part of the "liberal media agenda?" Doesn't seem so. Though, as a commie liberal fan, I'm wearing my Leon Trotsky hockey jersey today. He played for the Red Wings, of course.

The YouTube Effect

If you followed the 2008 Presidential Race on YouTube, you're liable to think that Ron Paul is leading this thing and Barack Obama is the second coming of Zeus, or Heccuba, or Rocky Balboa, or Rambo. Maybe Ron Paul is more the Rambo type. In any case, I had to be one of the countless bloggers to show you the following....






While these videos make the rounds, I think its fascinating to check out the comments listed below. If nothing else this level of debate, I call it meta-debate, that is debate about debate, has raised the level of discourse throughout the country. I cannot remember a time when the country cared so much about an election cycle. The question is, where does the blogosphere fit into the debate? Do the bloggers and you-tubers matter? Is this new form of media as important or more important than traditional television? Blogs like this one are a new phenomena in politics, do they effect the debate?