It might seem like if there are a lot of media outlets to choose from, as is the case in the U.S., there will only be such ideological content in the media as viewers (or listeners or readers, but I’ll call them viewers) will want. In other words, it might seem like there won’t be any “persuasion” in the sense of viewers being talked into accepting the ideology of media outlet owners. But it’s not obvious that this is true, and even if it were true it’s not obvious that it is a good thing for viewers get the ideological media content that they “want.” Some reasons are as follows.
I recommend reading Sunstein's Infotopia if you haven't already. He cites several studies showing that the tendency of groups that start out agreeing on the ideology (i.e. Rush and his listeners) become more extreme in their views as a result of their discussion. If we are all able to access media that we agree with (which is what most of do when possible), it just creates more polarized groups, leading to a more polarized political environment. So the growth of ideological sources (TV, blogs, talk radio, etc.) can lead to some bad consequences, even if you like the ideologies of the groups themselves.
For anyone who is also a history buff, this is the opposite of what Jefferson and Madison had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.
The point of the post was only to show that ideological persuasion is both possible and not *necessarily* good. Whether it is in fact good or bad does depend on the character of the persuasion. It would be biased to pretend that persuasion is not persuasion just because you like it, and of course there is a real problem in getting people to agree what good persuasion is, but I don't see how discriminating between different kinds of persuasion automatically makes one guilty of bias.
A clear test of bias is whether you disapprove of media choices that reinforce the ideology of your opponents, while you approve of media choices that reinforce your own ideology. You shouldn't be able to have this both ways.
"the ideology is effective but is subtle enough that the viewers don't know they're getting it."
Such as when that ideological persuasion is passed off as being unbiased. For example, when it is presented as a news story in the New York Times, CBS News, or Fox News.
I recommend reading Sunstein's Infotopia if you haven't already. He cites several studies showing that the tendency of groups that start out agreeing on the ideology (i.e. Rush and his listeners) become more extreme in their views as a result of their discussion. If we are all able to access media that we agree with (which is what most of do when possible), it just creates more polarized groups, leading to a more polarized political environment. So the growth of ideological sources (TV, blogs, talk radio, etc.) can lead to some bad consequences, even if you like the ideologies of the groups themselves.
For anyone who is also a history buff, this is the opposite of what Jefferson and Madison had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.
David, I agree that it can be unbiased to approve of some kinds of persuasion and disapprove of others.
Robin and Doug S.,
The point of the post was only to show that ideological persuasion is both possible and not *necessarily* good. Whether it is in fact good or bad does depend on the character of the persuasion. It would be biased to pretend that persuasion is not persuasion just because you like it, and of course there is a real problem in getting people to agree what good persuasion is, but I don't see how discriminating between different kinds of persuasion automatically makes one guilty of bias.
But my ideology is correct, and theirs is wrong!
A clear test of bias is whether you disapprove of media choices that reinforce the ideology of your opponents, while you approve of media choices that reinforce your own ideology. You shouldn't be able to have this both ways.
"the ideology is effective but is subtle enough that the viewers don't know they're getting it."
Such as when that ideological persuasion is passed off as being unbiased. For example, when it is presented as a news story in the New York Times, CBS News, or Fox News.