If there is perhaps one thing that CAN be laid at the feet of Big Tech and its algorithms, it's for seriously warping and polarizing America's already-fraught politics among adults, particularly on the right. Wasn't that actually Jon Haidt's original criticism of social media a decade or so ago, before he jumped on the latest teen-panic bandwagon?
That is true, and it has greatly worsened ever since St. Ronnie of the Raygun tore down the Fairness Doctrine. Imperfect as it was, it was a textbook example of a Chesterton's Fence: Before you take down a fence, be sure you know why it was put up in the first place.
As one who frequently used the Fairness Doctrine for political causes in the 1970s and '80s, we were often relegated to late-night or little-patronized holiday and weekend broadcasts. I'm not surprised it had little impact compared to millions in corporate advertising. I think Wes is right about radio, which goes back to at least Father Coughlin in the 1930s. I think it really took off with the rise of Gingrich in 1994 and Fox News in 1996, though.
You are probably correct, Wes. Indeed, correlation is not causation, and the fact that the fall of the Fairness Doctrine was followed by an acceleration of political polarization does not mean that other factors weren't far more important.
Amen! Well said overall as usual, Mike!
If there is perhaps one thing that CAN be laid at the feet of Big Tech and its algorithms, it's for seriously warping and polarizing America's already-fraught politics among adults, particularly on the right. Wasn't that actually Jon Haidt's original criticism of social media a decade or so ago, before he jumped on the latest teen-panic bandwagon?
Political polarization began increasing with the introduction of national radio broadcasts. The trend is not new
That is true, and it has greatly worsened ever since St. Ronnie of the Raygun tore down the Fairness Doctrine. Imperfect as it was, it was a textbook example of a Chesterton's Fence: Before you take down a fence, be sure you know why it was put up in the first place.
I have found the empirical evidence for Fairness Doctrine's impact to be quite lacking wet political voting, at least.
As one who frequently used the Fairness Doctrine for political causes in the 1970s and '80s, we were often relegated to late-night or little-patronized holiday and weekend broadcasts. I'm not surprised it had little impact compared to millions in corporate advertising. I think Wes is right about radio, which goes back to at least Father Coughlin in the 1930s. I think it really took off with the rise of Gingrich in 1994 and Fox News in 1996, though.
You are probably correct, Mike
You are probably correct, Wes. Indeed, correlation is not causation, and the fact that the fall of the Fairness Doctrine was followed by an acceleration of political polarization does not mean that other factors weren't far more important.
And After Babel is at it again. Did you see the latest post today? SMH