Blogging Assignment #3

Hindman proposes rather very interesting notions on the subject of the internet in relation to politics . While the Internet is generally thought of as a place any individual in any location may express his or her opinion on any number of topics, Hindman presents some very contradicting views held by several individuals on this concept.  A factor that I liked about the “Myth of Digital Democracy” is that for the most part it does not lean towards one side.  It presents both negative and positive aspects of the Internet such as how the Internet was utilized in the 2004 and 2008 elections with a high level of success.

 Personally, the boiling pot of opinions on the internet appeals to me and is very much a positive thing.  Politics, in particular, is a very dense involved subject.  The more complicated a subject is, the more opinions it deserves.  However, I can also see how the Internet can be a negative thing in politics, though I can’t say I whole-heartedly agree with these views because it is much easier to be open-minded and knowledgeable when we are exposed to other opinions, ideas and beliefs rather than being limited in what we know. 

A line from the book that struck me as particularly askew is “Cass Sunstein contends that the Internet may mean the end of broadcasting; with audiences widely dispersed over mil-

lions of Web sites, general-interest intermediaries will disappear, political polarization will accelerate, and public debate will coarsen” I cannot see eye to eye on that point of view because it just seems unrealistic to me.  It seems highly unlikely for general-interest intermediaries to vanish as well the termination of broadcasting.  I believe broadcast is something that will always exist, there’s too much relying on broadcast for it to just disappear. Sunstein’s views are somewhat excessive.  


 Another viewpoint from Arthur Lupia and Gisella Sin that I extremely disagree with is:

 The World Wide Web . . . allows individuals-even children-to
post, at minimal cost, messages and images that can be viewed
instantly by global audiences. It is worth remembering that as
recently as the early 1990s, such actions were impossible for
al1 but a few world leaders, public figures, and entertainment
companies-and even for them only at select moments. Now
many people take such abilities for granted. (2003, 316) 

They are taking something positive and reiterating it as negative. Why should only a select few have the right to express their opinions? Any individual, regardless of age, race religion, etc., has the right to share his or her idea.  The Internet has made it virtually effortless to express one's message and that should not be seen as a negative thing.