Monday, November 12, 2007
Political Savior or Slayer?
It is plain to see that the internet proves to be a powerful tool towards politics. Is it a good or bad thing? Through the internet low-funded candidates can seek sponsors. It is also true that personal opinions and ideas can also run rampant and replace facts through the internet also. Could it be that the candidate that was just for you, that supported all of your ideas, but never received the funding can gain more acceptance through the internet? Or will the use of the internet just further confuse the public and make them even more politically ignorant?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I believe that the internet is a good tool for candidates. Maybe the truth can be hard insted of biest opinions from reporters. Also curious readers can research and find out for themselves if information is valad or not.
The information on the web isn't free from bias. Although, I agree that it does allow people to do their own research, which is always a plus. The validity of the information would still be questionable. The government supplies some websites that give information and these would be accessed quite a bit more if people were led the right way. Altogether, it would increase the involvement within our democracy, but is that a good thing?
>Altogether, it would increase the involvement within our democracy, but is that a good thing?
If people participate with a broad and deep access to knowledge, then that is a good thing.
I agree with this point. Since the huge advance of internet technology and information sharing, opinions and an endless amount of information is moved about via various forums. We have the same issue with napster and the like; it's an iffy situation: on one hand lesser known artists or in your case, politicians, get their time in the spotlight, but major musical acts get a significant loss of potential earned funds. Youtube is another one, remember that wierdo candidate who raced around on stage screaming wildly about "taking" states and winning his election? That sole performance killed his chances, if it weren't for the internet and other media showing that clip over and over, he may have had a chance, so it truly is a double-edged sword.
> NickPagel: "remember that wierdo candidate who raced around on stage screaming wildly about "'taking'" states and winning his election?"
That was an esteemed example of how the internet could hinder politics instead of aiding it. Both sides of the issue seem factual. Perhaps the only way we will know for sure is to try it out first.
Okay and if people had not seen the weirdo and how he has the tendency to run around all crazy, is that fair that they should not know that? People must be responsible and smart about their choices by doing their own research, and making their own judgments. Being informed is the best we can do in making a smart decision. It is all up to the people to take the responsibility, Is it really that hard?
Perhaps he is just the only wierdo to be caught so far.
I love the internet when it comes to researching the viewpoints of the canidates I'm interested in. I've learned a lot about presidential nominees. Closer to election day, the internet will further my knowledge and I'll then be confident in who I'm voting for for president.
I agree with the general consensus here, that the internet is extremely useful for access to news and other information. I too, have been researching candidates and reading their respective platforms, and its much more convenient when I can come check it on my own time, not having to wait for it to come on TV. Unfortunately, a lot of people do get the wrong information from the internet by not using valid sources, but there's a likelihood of that no matter where you get your news from.
Post a Comment