LiberalBias (ThoughtStorms)

In the US, the right accuse the media of "liberal" ie. centre-left bias.

JayRosen gets a good discussion of the posited cause of that here :

My assumption would be that the centre-left are often those who believe that power is (or should be) exercised through the transfer of ideas. Whereas the right believe that it's (or that it's equally legitimately) exercised through exchange and therefore money. So leftists go into professions - like teaching and journalism - which are about spreading ideas. And rightists go where the money is.

Actually, you could extend this :

Thus the real religion of the right is faith in MassivelyParallelProcessing by dumb units. The obsession of the left is the best of individual human reasoning. It's ConnectionismVsGOFAI !!

The above is :

More :

UmairHaque against the anti-information market "bourgoisee" : (See (See also AgoricSystems)

Range of interesting blog posts (which possibly need to be refactored) and lead to thinking about DisputationArena, self-criticism (CriticalRationalism)

: of course, I'm trying to build that model into TypedThreadedDiscussion. (See also OnRhetoric)

WikiPedia (and the BlogoSphere) are big challenges to the leftist / intellectual. The intellectual believes in the value of reason and ideas. And believes in their truth. But as a democratically inclined leftist, she must also believe that the majority should agree with these ideas. If she doesn't, she isn't really a democrat or egalitarian but an elitist. (Leftists are not, by inclination, elitists but sometimes fall into that position out of despair. Rightist, elitists can simply enjoy the position, of course.)

But the leftist democrat is provided with plenty of examples that the masses don't agree with her analysis or presecriptions. So how can she handle the CognitiveDissonance? By assuming that there are other sorts of power (TypesOfPower) in the world which opposee the general understanding of the issues. In particular, that MarketPower (which controls the media) is going to create false and misleading understanding.

However, when new media forms come along which require orders of magnitude less MarketPower to become involved with; the leftist ought to hope that the new media escapes, to a certain extent, the right-wing bias of the existing media, and promotes a more general leftist understanding.

If it doesn't then how can the leftist explain? :

My diagnosis.

Not saying that the three typical explanations have no reality or relevance, but I think they miss the core issues. The massively parallel, democratic new media like WeblogsAndWikis are further with the "grain" of the "right" than the left emphasis on individual intelligence.

We shouldn't expect people who are embracing the freedom of OnlineWriting without gatekeepers to have much sympathy with attempts at imposing "expertise" (AcademiaVsNewMedia). Nor necessarily expert (government) control of other services (education, health etc.)

The online world is a slippery-slope towards resistence to authority : anarchy, libertarianism.

The question is, what will "left" and "right" mean in this world?

I think we know what the "right" will mean :

If the leftist has egalitarian, democratic impulses she needs to embrace the grain of decentralization. However this will mean rethinking the status of "expertise" and "academic power". Not eliminating expertise but winning attention for it. In a sense, the next wave of changes coming to the web, in the form of SocialSearch, structured discourse etc. may be optimistic. These might help people identify and pay attention to expertise again. In which case, I'd expect to see a rise in left-power.

What should left "mean" with respect to :

** but there should still be redundancy

** no-one is immune from error. A visibly faster error-correction process is better than error denial

See also : TriangleOfPower


Although let's not forget the actual vast right-wing conspiracy spin-machine : StateOfTheMedia/2005


HowTheRightThink :

See also :