Egocasting?

I just uncovered an interesting tidbit: Gilles Duceppe's disparaging comments about statisticians were pre-planned--see the update to my earlier post. And yet:

"The sad thing about relying on blogs for information about political choices is that they are high on opinion and low on fact and preach to the choir rather than address issues factually, substantively and inclusively."

So says Michael Bugeja, a professor (of journalism, apparently) at Iowa State, as quoted today in an unperceptive Globe and Mail article titled "Wired up, plugged in, zoned out". Bugeja goes on to say that

"We need print newspapers to do that [address issues factually, substantively and inclusively] because the issues requiring factual analysis are more complex than ever and cannot be stated simply in a TV sound bite or Internet news brief."

Huh? I thought we were talking about blogs, not TV sound bites.

Ah, yes, God forbid anyone rely on blogs and news via the Internet. We need print newspapers that publish reliable stuff. Like this:

"In the current Canadian election, more and more people are getting their news via blogs and subscriptions to Web services that align with their own beliefs, so they hear few opposing viewpoints."

Um, would it be too much to ask for some evidence that this is the case? I'm not disputing the claim that people are increasingly turning to the Internet for news and opinions. But are they thereby filtering out opposing views?

The author of the Globe and Mail article, Tralee Pearce, writes that

"The filters and search devices used to make all this information manageable, [many observers say], are isolating people into niches fashioned to their particular tastes and beliefs. Instead of going to common sources, whether newspapers or broadcast TV, to get the daily news, users are getting only the 'daily me'."

Pearce notes that American historian Christine Rosen has termed this phenomenon "egocasting". Well there's a buzzword. Never mind that it reverses the roles of the producer and the consumer of information.

But more to the point, is it true? One of the things I find quite wonderful about the Internet is that it makes it so easy to access such a broad variety of information and viewpoints. And technology for web syndication like RSS makes this much easier. But perhaps most people just stick to what they feel comfortable and familiar with.

Of course, this sort of narrow filtering could never happen with the print media. First, the major newspapers present such a broad array of viewpoints, you could never accuse them of filtering the content. Second, it's not as if most people only read newspapers and magazines that tend to agree with their own beliefs.