So Labor is going to choose another leader, not that I care much, the politics of celebrity don't interest me as much as they used to. Ironically, now that the Liberal Government has gone past nine years, statistically they are vulnerable in an election, so the new Labor leader has a genuine chance at being Prime Minister. Judging by previous statistics, the only party since World War II to survive less than nine years has been the Whitlam government and Kerr helped bring that on.

The media will undoubtedly have a field day on this, speculating in such tight circles that it fits the violently fast news cycle. The same news cycle that swamps the mass media with the "crisis" of the day, to the exclusion of all else. Mass media has been dropping in quality precipitously in the last few years, possibly because the internet and self-publishers are intruding on the "mass" part the media used to have a monopoly on. One of the areas that has suffered most in the last few years has been the op-eds.

Doubling the Readership by Polarization

The op-eds were supposed to be a long term look at issues, outside of the daily news cycle which lets so much get by or slip through. It is no joke that all bad news is dumped on the media at a 4pm Friday, or that deported refugees are flown out of the country under the noise from a big story like the recent tsunami.

The op-eds have become the source of most polarization in the papers. The mass media is trying to double its readership by appealing simultaneously to an individuals desire for the comfort of an echo-chamber and their ingrained ability to be outraged. Shocked even, I tell you. If one person nods their head in agreement to an op-ed then it is guaranteed than another will be outraged.

If you look at the letters in the Sydney Morning Herald, most have become "I totally agree with so-and-so" or the "I cannot believe so-and-so said, nor believes that". Basically we are getting played - played by the media editors and the clever writing techniques of the op-ed writers. That isn't to say that all op-ed writers do this, there are some that provide good, reasoned discourse, but the majority are adopting this Devine, Henderson, Ramsay, Kingston like style.

This polarized style works both ways, by doing it the author manages to get the person who agrees with them to read, but also those that don't, because they get a sense of outrage. This is deliberate, the op-eds are not intended to give a reasoned long view, but to stir up controversy. Andrew Norton of Catallaxy in a comment on Troppo Armadillo;

In the mid-1990s I was a so-so fortnightly columnist for the Courier-Mail (in my defence, I already had a full-time job and had to file copy several days before it appeared, depriving me of immediate topicality). But when they first rang me up they said that they were concerned that their opinion page lacked, er, opinion. These pages have to get people talking, and people with identifiable political views are more likely to do so.

I have not read Andrew's op-ed pieces, so don't want to make it appear that his writings were what I am talking about here, but his comment does signify that there is an editorial decision to make the op-ed pieces polarized, controversial and sensational.

The problem with the most polarized of writers, such as Henderson, Devine and Kingston is that they quickly become unreadable. Henderson's writings often border on trolling, a high-percentage of Devine's are internet rants or ad-hominims and Kingston's are oft narrow-cast flaming. Unfortunately high volume internet sites give that low class of discourse away for free.

If you get offended by Devine or Henderson, then grab an account at the intolerant cesspools known as freerepublic.org, or littlegreenfootballs.com; alternatively if Kingston or Ramsey get your indignation meter going, then try the site - that John Sundman called something like, "people all violently agreeing with each other" - dailykos.org. Or if you just like being offended, try the now archival; adequacy.org.

The op-ed pages have quickly devolved into a "shock jock" formula - the Howard Sternization of op-ed media. Fortunately the internet has grown as alternate media and many in the Australian political lay-punditry area write far more reasoned and insightful comments than the majority of polarized op-ed hacks that inhabit the mass media.

Fear of a Polarized Nation

For whatever reason, people and the mass media, like drawing arbitrary divisions in the sand. In the United States this is the red vs blue syndrome, even though a voting map shows much of the country to be purple. The recently published "Daily Show" book contains a similar red vs blue analogy with the Australian 2001 elections. The outposts of blue being Sydney, Melbourne and the other urban areas.

There is a distinct draw to an echo chamber. People do try to avoid stress, and for good reason, too much stress, especially constant stress can damage health. By the same token, too much of an echo chamber can do wider damage to society, culture and democracy. George Bush lives in an echo chamber. His cabinet meetings are scripted and dissenting views rarely get through. Those that do dissent, often empiricists, quickly get the boot.

It has been my experience though, that there is a human commonality. Of the places I have been and the people I have met, from many nations, the commonality is that 99.9% of people are good people. Honest people, that are warm, open and friendly. They want your success as well as their own. They have common cares and concerns, they want their children to grow up in peace and prosperity. They want to be able to safely maintain decent housing for themselves and their family, they want a good education for their kids, and they want their children to have greater opportunities than they themselves have.

I cannot push this reality of people into a media which seeks division and polarisation in order to increase their circulation.

I understand that mass media exists to make money and to satiate their share holders and lenders. However, if the mass media goes to the vain lengths to call itself the fourth estate, it has better act as one, or face the wrath of the public. The wrath being, not buying their "national inquirer" garbage, and leading them to fiscal poverty through decreased circulation and hits.

The likes of Henderson, Devine, Kingston etc are being maintained in the mass media system by editors that see as many referrals/letters come from the indignations folks as the echo-chamber folks. It is circulation and referrals which makes the Sydney Morning Herald solvent. If bloggers and websites stop linking to the polarising/sensationalist op-ed writers, the editors will quickly know. A writer that suffers a loss of linking and hence a drop in ad-revenue for the paper will quickly get the punt.

I am arguing for only the good op-ed writers to be rewarded by the blogosphere, otherwise the op-ed pages will continue to publish the polarised garbage that too often passes for reasoned discourse. When dealing with companies that work on a profit motive, it is important to give them feedback on why you are not using their product. Consequently I am going to email/write the Sydney Morning Herald that I will no longer be linking from South Sea Republic to Henderson, Devine or Kingston.

Call it a boycott - so that the Sydney Morning Herald replaces them with better writers that don't write trolls, ad-hominems, attack articles or attempt to manipulate their audience through indignation.

cam