What should be done to separate rational differences of opinion from hateful propaganda?

May 12, 2002 1:19 PM

According to Friedman of NYT, "thanks to the Internet and satellite TV, the world is being wired together technologically, but not socially, politically or culturally. We are now seeing and hearing one another faster and better, but with no corresponding improvement in our ability to learn from, or understand, one another. So integration, at this stage, is producing more anger than anything else. As the writer George Packer recently noted in The Times Magazine, 'In some ways, global satellite TV and Internet access have actually made the world a less understanding, less tolerant place.'" In some ways, I tend to agree. What can be done? What should be done to separate rational differences of opinion from hateful propaganda?

posted by semmi to general weblog-related at 1:19 PM (17 comments total)

i disagree, without the internet how would i know what people in portugal think? ;) one of my favorite aspects of the internet is learning what people in other countries think about things.

"Internet users are only 5 percent of the population — but these 5 percent spread rumors to everyone else. They say, `He got it from the Internet.' They think it's the Bible."

is that the internets fault? to me this just seems like the constant "internet is evil" crap the media likes to put out, probably by someone who uses email reluctantly, because they prefer "the written word" blah blah crap

At its worst, it can make people dumber faster than any media tool we've ever had.

seriously? what about all the data that shows people who use the internet being more tolerant etc. i guess that wouldn't go against his "point" since he blames the actions of both people who use the internet and people who don't use the internet, on the internet.
posted by rhyax at 2:03 PM on May 12, 2002

And you can scrap the BBC and just get your news from those Web sites that reinforce your own stereotypes.

Now, that's true, more than ever. But Friedman starts his rant with a reference to Fox News, which fulfils the same purpose. Perhaps the web caters more to extremes than even those broadcast sources with reputations for bias (and I'll include Al-Jazeera here) but it's not a problem with the medium, but with the fragmentation of all media into echo chambers. (Or, more accurately, the perceived polarisation of all media along the Dubya axis.) And yeah, there's the old debate on whether media reflect or enforce their consumers, but it's also a feedback loop: which is why trying to shift the focus of a paper is equally tricky. Applying a judgement on one or two media without noting the common trend is just a wee bit lazy.
posted by riviera at 3:02 PM on May 12, 2002

“What should be done to separate rational differences of opinion from hateful propaganda?”

Less media intake. More life experiences.
posted by raaka at 3:52 PM on May 12, 2002

You're on, raaka, wanna throw a MeFi Cleveland gathering with me? If we had a life, would we be on this website?

Agreed, refocusing media perspective is tricky. The audience has limited time to devote, and you can't squeeze a balanced perspective into every soundbite without giving up on any pretense of actually explaining complex situations.

"Worse, just when you might have thought you were all alone with your extreme views, the Internet puts you together with a community of people from around the world who hate all the things and people you do." Moral of the story: "Pay no attention to that little man behind the curtain ... Reject all facts and information which do not fit your preconceived ideas."
posted by sheauga at 3:58 PM on May 12, 2002

One must learn to walk before one can run.
posted by rushmc at 4:38 PM on May 12, 2002

"What should be done to separate rational differences of opinion from hateful propaganda?"

Hmm...I have no trouble keeping the two separate.
Of course, I have a huge, pulsating brain.
So, I guess the answer is...
...breed to me.
posted by Opus Dark at 4:47 PM on May 12, 2002

Bloviation! Nothing happens overnight. Rather than less tolerant, I believe we are getting a glimpse at the level of intolerance that has always existed. If that is not learning about each other, what is?
posted by mischief at 5:35 PM on May 12, 2002

"We are now seeing and hearing one another faster and better" hearing perhaps but there is little 'seeing' as far as i can see. until we can have live feeds as easy as e-mail this so-called disjunction will stand. I agree with what mischief wrote. its learning.
posted by clavdivs at 6:19 PM on May 12, 2002

media deliver only that information which the owners of media desire.
posted by quonsar at 6:56 PM on May 12, 2002

I believe we are getting a glimpse at the level of intolerance that has always existed. If that is not learning about each other, what is.

Personally, I think that people have access to so many more points of view than they did before the Internet age that they simply have more to argue about now. I know I do.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 7:09 PM on May 12, 2002

Less media intake. More life experiences. Amen, kind of: media is a good substitute for life experiences, if there are barriers that force you to have them only vicariously.

media deliver only that information which the owners of media desire. Rubbish. You make the same-old assumption of monolithic thought and monolithic control. Get some new rhetoric.
posted by Mo Nickels at 7:10 PM on May 12, 2002

Get some new rhetoric.
i'll get some new rhetoric when the world gets some new tricks.

posted by quonsar at 4:30 AM on May 13, 2002

And you can scrap the BBC and just get your news from those Web sites that reinforce your own stereotypes.

like BBC News online. I mean bbc.co.uk is only the most popular website in the UK, so obviously nobody gets their news from that.
posted by nedrichards at 5:08 AM on May 13, 2002

No amount of exposure to different ideas is going to make the world a less hateful, more rational place. Only a change in brain chemistry for the human race can do that. But I do think if you're encouraged to face your own prejudices and argue them out, like you are on the internet, the more chance there is of you seeing the inconsistencies of your own position and perhaps rethinking. Or seeing ideas that hadn't even occurred to you. Doesn't always or even often work, but sometimes perhaps.
posted by Summer at 6:29 AM on May 13, 2002

"i'll get some new rhetoric when the world gets some new tricks."


'mommas alright, daddas alright, they just seem a little...angry at the worlll-ahurld".

get the hint quonsar...oh, course not, your thinking of a witty comeback. well pally, if this continues, you will get your own 'ettiquit' post in MeTa. and trust me....you will lose. trust me, i lite bunch-0-matches under peoples feet here. they dont budge, flinch, blink, in fact, mefis collective slam-shame 'power' is larger then you. But most likely you will be ignored...oh I've tried the tease-then-shock the audience routine. It goes this far.

see, people are extremely tolerant *here*

start using your wisdom.



posted by clavdivs at 8:07 AM on May 13, 2002

No amount of exposure to different ideas is going to make the world a less hateful, more rational place.

I think you are WAY overstating the case here; though I will certainly concede that exposure alone is not sufficient, it is usually a prerequisite. You can't learn to love mangos until you are exposed to mangos. You can't learn to understand tangos until you are exposed to tangos.
posted by rushmc at 7:28 PM on May 13, 2002

I kinda said that futher down, rush.
posted by Summer at 12:21 PM on May 14, 2002