Persuasion

John Sides and Eric Lawrence write about their research into who reads political blogs and why:

How might political blogs and their readers affect the presidential campaign?

They will not change many voters' minds because the vast majority of their readers are already members of the choir and hold strong opinions about politics. So don't expect political blogs to make Democrats vote for John McCain or Republicans embrace Barack Obama. If political blogs change opinions, they will more likely do so indirectly -- by uncovering new information that is then amplified and discussed in media that reach a broader, and less partisan, cross section of the public.

This is all true enough but also, I think, an unduly limited way of looking at things. For one thing, having a relatively unpersuadable audience is, I believe, common to all explicitly political media. Only people who like following politics would tune in to Meet The Press and people who like following politics usually have strong views about politics and are thus unlikely to be swayed by things they watch there. But there are more questions to be answered than "should I vote for the Democrat or the Republican in November?" Blogs are much more likely to persuade people on issues like "John Edwards or Barack Obama" or even more so "as someone who doesn't even live in Maryland, should I care about the Al Wynn versus Donna Edwards primary?" or "is the telecom immunity provision of the proposed changes to FISA a big deal?"

Blogs are a niche medium for political obsessives, so they tend to impact readers' opinions on questions that normal people just wouldn't bother having opinions about at all. That's not the same as saying that no persuasion happens and it's all preaching to the choir. It's more like the members of the choir talking about choir-related issues that others may not really care about.

Photo by Matt Stoller used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

What's the photo supposed to represent?

Posted by Andrew Fly | July 14, 2008 12:11 PM

That photo was clearly not taken by Matt Stoller.

Posted by Ben | July 14, 2008 12:35 PM

I agree with you that, at least for partisans, the internet is more useful for particular issues.

However, each of us, at some point, was introduced to politics. My mother gave me a feel good version of the Democrats, anti-racist and anti-sexist, while my father represents a form of reactionary politics not seen since the early 19th century (racist, sexist, and only property holders should vote).

In the modern age, people also are introduced to politics online.

Blogs will, in part, serve as examples of the types of views held by each side, show the variation in views, and also indicate the type of people one might meet if one joins a party.

There also always will be who are honestly divided, who might get their answer from a blog. In this election, for example, an anti-war Republican or pro-war Democrat is going to have come to some compromise, if vote at all.

Posted by Josh SN | July 14, 2008 12:39 PM

I agree with you that, at least for partisans, the internet is more useful for particular issues.

However, each of us, at some point, was introduced to politics. My mother gave me a feel good version of the Democrats, anti-racist and anti-sexist, while my father represents a form of reactionary politics not seen since the early 19th century (racist, sexist, and only property holders should vote).

In the modern age, people also are introduced to politics online.

Blogs will, in part, serve as examples of the types of views held by each side, and the type of people one might meet if one joins a party.

There also always will be who are honestly divided, who might get their answer from a blog. In this election, for example, an anti-war Republican or pro-war Democrat is going to have come to some compromise, if vote at all.

Posted by Josh SN | July 14, 2008 12:42 PM

"It's more like the members of the choir talking about choir-related issues that others may not really care about."

I think this is sometimes true, but sometimes the choir believes that they are the only ones singing their particular hymn, when if fact many other choirs are singing different versions of the the same hymn, and the choir is actually just attached to their particular version, to the extent that they truly, truly believe that theirs is the ONLY way to sing the hymn and that anyone who is singing a different version is in fact not singing the hymn in question but rather a completely different, hateful hymn that they hate.

Posted by Mike | July 14, 2008 1:38 PM

*cough*, money, *cough*

Like Governor Dean's 2004 campaign, Obama's 2008 campaign is reaping the benefits of blog-driven fundraising.

Note how the "but he isn't going to abide by public financing, either!" meme lasted all of, like, two hours.

Posted by bartkid | July 14, 2008 1:40 PM

I would have to say that looking at a web log's readers, their stances or views towards a particular election, and the likelihood of changing those views for that particular election seems a touch myopic. Very few people who are politically inclined are likely to change their mind and vote McCain rather than Obama in the next 4 months thanks to a clever blog post or article they saw. However, if you would map their more overarching views and beliefs towards the philosophical underpinnings of various issues, even wedge issues, over a longer period of time it might lead to interesting results.

Anecdotally, I've shifted my views on a great deal thanks to a variety of dialogues and thoughtful posts I've encountered on the internet, as well as finding exceptional news sources that I never would have had access to. Where I once would have been considered an orthodox party booster, I'm now far more moderate, or at least less ideological and with a much broader range of views. This didn't all occur over the course of one presidential race, but it has impacted who I will vote for in this cycle and the next. It may take a good while, and it may not register in the most clear of signals, but the internet can change opinions.

Posted by Scott | July 14, 2008 1:58 PM

The question should be more along the lines of asking what the effect is of reading mostly content allied with your political point of view. What if it was the Thirties and I read primarily The New Masses and Daily Worker. [Answer: I would think Joe Stalin was a swell guy!]

But there was a Party line in the past, for both left and right, and you couldn't stray. I find much more variance in bloggers. For example, sometimes Matt and Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum don't always exactly line up the same on an issue.

So, blogs probably won't affect who I vote for in the presidential election. But it might affect my thinking on other items on the ballot and I might be persuaded to donate money or protest in reagrds to an issue.

Posted by The Pop View | July 14, 2008 2:42 PM

Ideology sucks.

"To determine just how polarized blog readers are, we constructed a measure of political ideology by drawing on blog readers' attitudes toward stem cell research, abortion, the Iraq war, the minimum wage and capital gains tax cuts. Using this measure, we then arrayed respondents from left to right."

Since when do the issues cited here define the left or right? Isn't the claim of blog polarization (blogarization - ya, I said it) somewhat hurt by choosing goalposts that are cornerstone issues of domestic partisan politics?

They're really just indicative of your party preference, not your ideology. A measure of political ideology by those issues doesn't, to me, form any sort of coherent left/right ideology; it merely fits you into our D/R monolith.

Posted by el duderino | July 14, 2008 5:29 PM

I can give an easy example of this - I was not for gay marriage before I began reading Andrew Sullivan. Nothing really against it, but I was raised a Catholic kid down south, didn't think the majority of homosexuals "really" wanted it, and did not gain much perspective from my homosexual friends, most of whom were more interested in specific issues, like getting American visas for their partners.

Reading Mr. Sullivan, I really began to appreciate how much marriage meant for them - a simple idea, but it never had been brought home to me the argument of "oh crap: suppose someone said I could not get married and that my love was illegitimate. That's awful!". Now, I am a quiet advocate for this issue amongst my friends and family, and there is a small network of people here in Texas who is more inclined than they used to be to view this issue the way that Mr. Sullivan does.

I tell this story not for self-aggrandizement, but because I think that that kind of thing can work well - not the "changing of minds by the bringing of ire", but the "subtle influencing through the bringing of new facts and perspectives."

Posted by Easy V | July 14, 2008 8:25 PM

The question I really have about the role of the internet and blogs is its impact on watercooler conversations.

I always assumed that uniformed voters take their cues from friends, family, and coworkers more than anything. The Republican infrastructure of direct mail, faxes, and emails doesn't reach enough individuals directly to change public opinion, and those it reaches are probably ideologically committed. How have these viral memes spread in the past? (And don't say through the media, because we are talking about uninvolved, low-information voters.)

There must have been studies of how these uninformed voters form opinions. I'm sorry that I can't point you to data.

In my conversations with friends and coworkers, I use a lot of facts drawn from the blogs I read to form arguments. And much of the stuff I care about (FISA, for example) I only care about because other people who care about the same different stuff (health care) informed me through their blogs.

Doesn't that have a ripple effect far beyond blog readership?

Posted by humanadverb | July 14, 2008 8:58 PM

I was going to say some things about education and ripple effects, but it has been said above and better than I would put it.

I will say, who the hell watches Press the Meet or any other bobblehead show? Has anyone ever said to you "I saw something on Nation the Face...?" Never happened to me.

Posted by Mark | July 15, 2008 1:46 AM