Last October I singled out Gary Nodler (R-Sen.) from Joplin, because he helped to block the use of laptops by Missouri State Senators. At the time I said I wouldn’t vote for him if he ever runs for a statewide office.  Turns out he is. He’s looking to take Roy Blunt’s U.S. Representative seat in southwest Missouri where I grew up.

My, how the tables turn!

This reminds me of why Internet access (and digital libraries) need to be accessible to lawmakers. And, with information becoming ambiently findable, why they need to be able to fact check one another in real time. The Annenburg Public Policy Center seems to understand this. They host FactCheck.org. So does the St. Petersburg Times which produces the Pulitzer Prize winning PolitiFact website. Unfortunately, not all of Missouri’s Senators do. Traditional media can’t move at the speed of assertion.

I may have been too hard on Sen. Nodler, especially after I found this site, but given any viewing of “Countdown with Keith Olberman” or “The O’Riley Factor” it’s obvious that political fact checking has it’s own bizarre standard. Interestingly, the media has become segmented in recent years which has allowed political hacks to justify almost anything.

This is a common problem. The internet, radio, and television are all  littered with falsehoods and half-truths, partially because anyone can slap an something together capable of reaching a wide audience. If properly approached, though, this problem can be resolved.

Basically, my argument is this. Given access to quality, agreed upon information sources, and perhaps a revised legislative process, politicians can improve the quality of discourse as debate occurs. If provided the opportunity to call one another out using evidence (the moment something is wrongly asserted), politicians then could, hopefully, improve their bottom line.

Of course they need to have access to the necessary information first, and they need to agree where to get it. The Daily Kos and the Drudge Report obviously should be ruled out.

With tomorrow’s vote on health-care reform due, it’s become increasingly obvious that Americans get the majority of information from sources that back up what they already believe. I’ve already argued in another post that I believe the internet and ”cheap media”  has made this possible.  Now, as a librarian – a supposed expert in research methodology – I’m willing to go a step farther. I think it has to do with market specific media segmentation.

This morning I took the time to read through a variety of sources concerning Congresses’ effort and the results were telling. Predictably, everything fell into camps that catered to their target demographic’s pre-conceived perceptions. What does this mean for the future of objective research? Is the “media,” if such a group exists anymore, fostering too much democracy?

My point isn’t so much that the media are to blame for Americans not “getting along.” As long as differences in opinion have existed, so have different information sources. Plus, to stay solvent a number of news agencies have had to market to specific audiences. Instead, what I’m arguing is that we are seeing something unique thanks to information being so easy to produce and find.

Newspapers, broadcasters, and other media producers have to segment the market to thrive. Simultaneously, people can find skewed information that backs up their beliefs easier than ever before. The two form a circular process in which the public can look for what they want and the media can produce more of it. They rely on one another. They’re supercharged by the internet and computers. It’s common to talk about clamor in democracy as occurring in a feedback room. I think a completely different feedback process is occurring as we speak.

Unless you’ve lived Ted Kaczynski style this past year, nobody in their right mind would say it’s been a harmonious one – politically, socially, or economically. I guess you can say a lot of people are pissed off. They’re pissed at heathcare reform, they’re pissed at the economy, and they’re pissed at a gazillion other little things like the I-Pad. Let’s face it, in America righteous indignation is in.

With information as accessible as it ever was, current news spreads fast.  But, is that a good thing? Is there a dark side to having quick access to information? I don’t doubt that there are many, many benefits,  but it’s also plausible that a universal acceptance of new media can lead to an inevitable playing toward the lowest common denominator?

Like sex, anger and frustration sell remarkably well.

Now, to be fair there’s a long tradition in journalism of people playing to others feelings, and new media doesn’t change that, but it’s also realistic to believe we are witnessing a sort of megaphone effect. People naturally look to validate their own beliefs and we all have source biases. But, given that there are so many sources out there the promulgation of information means that today it’s possible to validate anything. Once upon a time objective research was considered to be important. Today it garners CNN’s ratings.

As time goes on and the general public “backs up” their arguments using easily found resources, I suspect, they will also come to more rigidly defend them. After all if you can find it quickly then it must be true, right? The more rigidly the general public defends their arguments, of course, the more likely we are to see an increase in the volume of national discourse.

If this is the case, then the free flow of information may actually come at a cost. Blogs, Twitter,  and the changing technology driving shifts in information seeking behaviors… I see them as partially to blaim.

If  Sen. Gary Nadler ever runs for a statewide office there’s a good chance I won’t vote for him.

I don’t know much about his voting record and I don’t care about his politics. I just don’t think I could vote for someone who has repeatedly helped to kill proposals that would allow laptops on the floor of the Missouri State Senate. While I respect his “love of tradition” and his concern that technology can distract people from important business… he has disregarded a few important things:

• Instant access to information could improve debate and discussion.
• The only reason a laptops  haven’t been on the floor of the Senate floor… is because they are relatively new.
• Senators are not in High School. A computer might distract them from time to time but they’re adults. They can focus just fine.
• Opposing the use of laptops or similar equipment makes him come across as a Luddite.

I know that technology has it’s share of problems but barring it from an important institution is not realistic.

I usually avoid politics here at Library Without Walls but Adam Potthast, a Professor at Missouri S&T, has posted an excellent read on Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and the simmilar crew of conservative “talk media” politicos. Essentially, he argues that years of railing aginst government and political correctness have brought Republicans to where they are today; Glen Beck and rowdy town halls. It’s not a treatise on the topic, but it helps provide a starting point for a discussion on today’s “populism.” Read the full post here.