To answer that aforementioned question: no. At least that's what I've gathered from reading Chapters 3 and 4 of Matthew Hindman's The Myth of Digital Democracy. For males that fall under the 18-24 demographic such as myself, this especially seems true, as they represent just 9% of the 59% of overall males that frequent political sites (Pg. 68).
Prior to addressing this question, Hindman in Chapter 3 explains the theory of "Googlearchy", which suggests that the number of links pointing to a site is the most important determinant of site visibility, and that niche dominance should be a general rule of online life. (Pg.55). He uses this theory to challenge the notion that the internet is a "narrowcasting" medium that gives voice to marginalized or resource-poor groups (Pg. 38). By such groups he's referring to the many websites and blogs that aren't backed by media juggernauts, as well as those put up by ordinary people. Despite the vastness of the internet, the Googlearchy theory shows that there isn't much of a level playing field amongst political sites.
Hindman's first suggestion of Googlearchy is supported by research that shows how hyperlinking snuffs out the voice of the marginalized before they get the chance to speak. This is made possible by the power-law distribution described in Pg. 41. He likens the small set of sites that receive most of the links (Pg. 42) to the elite few defined in Pareto's distribution of wealth theory (20 percent of the population controls 80 percent of the wealth, Pg. 41). With the way that search engines (one of two methods in which users usually locate sites) are structured (by ranking algorithms such as PageRank and HITS), sparsely linked, non-mainstream sites are at the losing end of what Hindman describes as a "popularity contest" (Pg. 42), and are the equivalent of hosting a talk show on public-access at 3:30 in the morning (Pg. 56). Not that there's anything wrong with the latter, as Concrete TV on Manhattan Neighborhood Network is like, one of the best shows ever, but it's a great analogy that describes the uphill battle such sites face against the "winner-take-all" sites present in every internet niche (Pg. 56-57).
In Chapter 4, Hindman explores political sites on a macro level, utilizing data from the internet traffic firm Hitwise to put together several charts that showcase how small of a slice political sites are in the web traffic pie, as well as the demographics and patterns of people that frequent such sites. Most telling is the chart on Pg. 61, which shows that political sites make up just 0.12% of all internet traffic. Subsequent charts reinforce the "winner-take-all" hierarchies present in general, news/media and political sites, yet again point out the small role the latter play amongst them all (news and media sites receive thirty times as many visits as political sites do- Pg. 66). The charts on Pg. 67-68 show that political sites are most frequented by males over the age of 55, as well as those with an income between $60-100K. Hindman also explores the web behaviors that lead people to political content, with the charts on Pg. 75-76 showing how lower-ranked political sites rely more on search engine queries than hyperlinks, and how such queries are more about "familiar information outlets" (i.e jibjab.com, antiwar.com, political personalities such as Michael Moore and Ann Coulter) and not "new information sources or divergent political perspectives" (Pg. 77).
Hindman concludes that many internet users like simplicity and familiarity, and are not compelled to dig through the crates of the internet to find alternative sources or perspectives on political issues, which they aren't interested in to begin with. While he isn't speaking for everyone, I have to agree with him.
No comments:
Post a Comment