I've worked for a few days on a long posting about why the "echo chamber" meme is deeply flawed. But Joseph Menn just published a piece in the LA Times on the Echo Chamber effect. My piece is still too confused to publish, so instead I'm just going to post the final point it makes. Then maybe I'll figure out how to say the more complex thing I want to say. So, here goes:
The echo chamber meme distracts us from the true echo chamber: The constellation of media, especially in the US.
The Internet as a whole, presents the broadest range of opinion, belief, feeling and creativity in the history of civilization. If you are not on the Net, you are limited to a diminishing selection of outlets expressing a diminishing range of views. Stories are picked up and replayed. Master narratives determine, with the rigidity of a machine for extruding plastic, the basic way of presenting those ideas.
No, the media is the real echo chamber. The fact that it explicitly presents itself as a forum for objective truth, open to all ideas, makes it far more pernicious than some site designed to let fans rage about how much better Spike was on Buffy than he'll ever be on Angel.
We are at a dangerous time in the Internet's history. There are forces that want to turn it into a place where ideas, images and thoughts can be as carefully screened as callers to a radio talk show. The "echo chamber" meme, by implying that the Net really isn't diverse, plays into the hands of those who are ready to misconstrue the Net in order to control it.
[BTW, someone who saw a draft of the longer piece assumed that my comment about the media echo chamber is intended to blame the media for Dean's falter. Not at all. That's not my intent and I don't even blame the media (much) for that.]
David,
There is a guy on talk radio out here in SoCal who was pontificating on "The Boob" while I was driving to the dog park this evening. He made an interesting point. A favorite sport of Americans is mock outrage. Posturing is hip. See the previous comment asking for Trippi to "give back" the money.
But I think the treatment of Dean now is that he's being kicked while he's down. Witness the Wisconsin memo. He opens up in a memo to staff saying it will be difficult to win the nomination unless they win Wisconsin. It's turned into he's quitting the race if he doesn't win Wisconsin. It's really funny because the news stories I heard when it broke led with the conclusion and then quoted from the note! It is almost like they are kicking Dean with impunity.
I almost wonder if, as disgusting as "spin" is, this is the kind of thing it's meant to mitigate.
-Brad
Posted by Brad Hutchings on February 8, 2004 09:52 PM | Permalink to CommentMy take on the conventional media is a bit different.
As for the traditional "broadcast" media, I agree that they are too often ONE of the louder echo chambers. My view, however, is that they come by this "honestly" as a built in, perhaps unintended, consequence of their technology in a market economy.
Broadcast media have clearly become used to having an over powering dominance since the invention of the high speed printing press in the mid 19th century -- combined with the speed of telegraphic communications. They will not give this up easily.
-----------------------------------------------------
"While the Gutenberg press was much more efficient than manual copying, the Industrial Revolution and the introduction of the steam powered rotary press allowed thousands of copies of a page in a single day. Mass production of printed works flourished after the transition to rolled paper, as continuous feed allowed the presses to run at a much faster pace."
"In 1847, Richard Hoe perfected the first rotary press with the type actually carried on the cylinder. An American, William Bullock developed the first web press, in 1856. These early web presses could deliver 15,000 signatures per hour and printed both sides. The name Hoe Press is synonymous among the newspaper industry."
Since that time, newspaper presses have been developed to a high state of efficiency which, by duplicating plate and units, has allowed newspapers to be printed and delivered at the rate of 160,000 per hour."
-----------------------------------------------------
In a market economy it is logical to maximize profits. Thus there is built-in incentive to minimize the number of producers, i.e. consolidation and concentration of ownership is a logical goal -- even if it is illogical if one is supporting a political system based upon democracy.
Likewise, with a capital intensive production system, you must have a mass market to recover your costs and generate your profits. So there is an intrinsic drive to enforce conventional safe thinking supporting the orthodox monologue of the moment. Without a stable orthodoxy [environment] how can you have a viable mass market? This "ecology" naturally and predictably has a rapid response defense mechanism that attacks any emergent threat to the model. Resistance to change is built in as a survival instinct.
Clearly, a new communication system that has very low capital costs that are borne by the end users, who are also paradoxically the producers, can support a radical new concept: the free nano market. No mass and no profits required. The "reward" is being recognized, being read, being a part of the conversation. The money is earned someplace else, which may be enhanced by your nano market contributions.
How can a fee based mass market compete with a free nano market model? This is the terrifying question. Only in an and/both world, which we have not yet invented. What we will get in the future is a dynamic re-balancing of the pivot point between the interests of the center with the interests of the edges -- of the profit driven mass market and free nano market.
This process has just begun.
Posted by Jock Gill on February 9, 2004 10:03 AM | Permalink to CommentThis, Mr. Gill, is voodoo economics from way out in left-field. The left-field of the galaxy, is where this bad mojo comes from.
First off, you DO understand that a blog is a nano-broadcast tower, right? That's where "The Power" comes from, from being a constellation of nano-broadcast towers, no? (I did not see Burningbird's recent diagrams the way she did, obviously.)
"So there is an intrinsic drive to enforce conventional safe thinking supporting the orthodox monologue of the moment."
Conventional safe thinking is what prevents dot-com Deaniac melt-downs, if given the opportunity. That opportunity never arose in Blogaria, unfortunately, because there was an ignorance of correct thinking... Meaning, an ignoring of correct thinking.
Too much conventional safe thinking is not desirable, of course, but there's been so much trashing of the "conventional wisdom" that common sense has been thrown out with the bath water. Thus Blogaria's coronation of Dean, more-than-a-tad bit early.
Or have you not heard?
"How can a fee based .. market compete with a free nano market model? This is the terrifying question."
Yeah, especially if you have any intentions on feeding a family, and you are a "knowledge-worker" in EU or USA. Being in the upper-middle "knowledge-worker" class is NOT financially safe, in case you haven't read any reputable news sources or don't know.
Just out of curiousity, Mr. Gill, you appear to be either pretty well-set financially (or under-40-living-at-home), tenured, or poor. (Based on your comments, as I don't know you personally and don't recall a blog or very many comments). Lucky guess on my part?
In any event, your analysis is clouded, as is your understanding of the ecology of economics, from what I see here.
"The "reward" is being recognized, being read, being a part of the conversation."
Now THAT part is EXACTLY what I've been saying. The Deaniac Movement is essentially ALL about whuffie, as is Blogaria. Coincidence?!? Blogaria being founded by masters of whuffie-manipulation, what would you expect??? Whuffie in place of money. Same difference, in the end result:
Dot-com Deania.
You don't prevent Deania by taking ridiculous gambles and rejecting wisdom (whether that wisdom is conventional or not). And you don't prevent nuclear warfare that way either afaik.
Yes, many are taking their first baby-steps in this process, from what I've read in Blogaria so far. "Only in an and/both world, which we have not yet invented." No, this fantabulous "and/both world" has been invented and it's called Blogaria. Where you can work "for free" and/both make a ton-a scratch simultaneously.
Doesn't ALWAYS work out real well, now.. has it. These invented worlds don't tend to fit into reality as neatly as one would like to pretend, in my experience.
"Stories are picked up and replayed. Master narratives determine, with the rigidity of a machine for extruding plastic, the basic way of presenting those ideas."
This is so. And, in fact, this is precisely how Doc Searls and MANY others have described Blogaria. "It's about the story-telling." Wild-hair memes get extruded a-plenty, but few good ideas for some reason. (Or, rather, plenty of good ideas but even more lousy memes.)
"No, the media is the real echo chamber. The fact that it explicitly presents itself as a forum for objective truth, open to all ideas, makes it far more pernicious than some" reputable news sources.
The talk in the Echo Chamber, about "the real Echo Chamber" being an Echo Chamber because it calls the real Echo Chamber a bunch of hollow echo's...
Well, this is akin to a beginning meditator trying to meditate while looking in a mirror, from what I've read. It's confusing, especially when both mirrors are produced by the same person or group IN an echo chamber that looks more like a bunch-a circus-mirrors reflecting back and forth (from my pov).
Wasn't the media who invented Mr. Dean's "there is no just cause for war" platform, and it wasn't Mr. Dean and it wasn't Joe Trippi and Teachout either.
That was Blogaria's concoction, so when Dave Winer wrote:
"In fact what happened is that in a virtual sense, the Internet was looking for a candidate, and Howard Dean fit the bill. He was bloggable. He was interesting. And get this, he was interesting if you were for the war, as well as if you were against it."
Like Scoble said, all you have to do is write an interesting blog and you become a pop-star in Blogaria, (or "a messiah" if you get lucky and have the right connections). Scoble was right about that much.
But Dave Winer forgets that Howard Dean's position was that he WOULD go into Iraq with UN backing (which was NEVER going to happen, according to France, anyway). Blogaria invented that part, because they were still licking their wounds because their prognostications during the Iraq war were so inaccurate. They latched onto Dean, and Dean latched on to them, because it was a "sure-fire" "no-brainer". The fact that Blogaria invented Mr. Dean's image changes the way Dave Winer's post reads, entirely.
Especially the one line, which should have read:
"In fact what happened is that in a VERY REAL sense, nothing virtual about THIS reality: the Internet was looking for a candidate, and Howard Dean fit the bill close enough."
At least Howard Dean had the political sense NOT to run as the Internet candidate... You don't TELL people you're the candidate of the Lords and geeks, even if you are, if your trying to play the role of "candidate for the 'little people'".
THAT bandwagon wouldn't have lasted NEAR as long as the Dean campaign has. Too bad the $40 Million apparently HAD to be wasted for these points to even be raised.
I've been saying that for years.. okay weeks.. but it feels like years ;)
David: The link doesn't work and the writer's name is Joseph.
Hey, I wanna talk to the Joho Ombudsman!
DH - When Clinton lied, nobody died. Trippi give back the $7 million that people donated.
Posted by Dan Herzlich on February 8, 2004 10:19 AM | Permalink to Comment