Almost a month ago Kevin Drum pointed to a study on blog behavior and the self-reinforcing nature of bloggers and their links (the full study is "Divided They Blog"). In the extended entry is a chart that demonstrates the links between 40 of the top left and right wing blogs (20 from each side). The diagrams show very little interaction between the two sides. It's no surprise that those with similar partisan viewpoints should link to like-minded others more often - also called incestuous amplification. What is surprising is the lack of any significant linkage between the two sides at all. When it comes to political blogging there is plenty of preaching to the converted but little real debate.

It means is blogging, rather than being different or better, is merely a reflection of the partisanship common in politics. Instead of a chance for real debates over ideas it is far more common to find invective, insults and ridicule. That's a shame because it leaves much of the potential of the blogosphere wasted. Here is a vast, diverse collection of expertise and opinion that rewards insularity and punishes outreach. It is easy to see why.

Blogs live for two things: traffic and links. The bigger blogs derive significant revenues from their advertising, thus making it even more important to increase visitors. The easiest way to do that is to latch onto bigger bloggers with similar politics and views. With so many blogs all clambering for attention "the squeaky wheels get the grease". The more extreme and partisan the greater chance bigger blogs will link and more readers will be exposed to that site. And once it starts working the system re-enforces itself - what worked once will work over and over again. The audience dictates the message and at least in these early days of blogging those most likely to read blogs are the politically active. These readers already have views and are most comfortable with sites that reflect them. Should readers go to sites with who's views they disagree and dare post comments, they are quickly shouted down, although it should be noted often those who post comments at "opposing" sites are asking for trouble.

In short, extremes outweigh moderation. Partisanship outweighs consensus. Shouting outweighs debate. And all that extremism and partisanship and shouting achieves virtually nothing.

I've been fortunate enough to be part of a recent email debate amongst some great bloggers. I commented at one stage how intelligent and civil the discussion had been, despite some firmly held views on a controversial topic. Those involved include William Rice, Nitin of The Acorn, Dan of tdaxp and Bill Roggio of the Fourth Rail. Bill put it best:

I think the conversation is civil because we are like minded individuals interested in a freer and better world. Our ideas or outlooks may differ, but in the end we are working towards the same goals - greater knowledge and the sharing of ideas. We aren't discussing silly conspiracy theories but serious issues that have many different angles that must be addressed.

I am always looking for new ideas and different perspects, and will not cling to my own to the death. If there is a better view than my own, I want to hear it and incorporate it. I have a feeling we all hold this view, hence the healthy debate.

We need more links across the divide. But the blogosphere will be a much greater place if we can bridge the chasm. Is the blogosphere ready for sites dedicated to open debate without ad hominem attacks, with moderate or multiple viewpoints, where people follow the rules of listening, respect and having an open mind?

More reading

1. Gene Expression examined the same phenomena based on a study of red vs blue books and finished with this:

I'm wondering whether the Blue-Red schism is really more a manifestation of intellectual apathy on the part of the populace and less indicative of the ideological differences.

I believe that, with rare exception, most of us who have been at the blogging game for more than a year or two simply don't like cross-blog pissing matches, and in a year like 2004, back-and-forth link volleys between Bush and Kerry supporters was almost guaranteed to be nasty. Some people enjoy that sort of nastiness but I don't happen to be one of them and I know I'm not unique in that respect.

It was a very trying and difficult year [2004] and I must admit that during the period from the Democratic convention until election day, I don't think I enjoyed blogging much at all. I hope we never have an election year like that again.

Update 4/7/05: Dean Esmay responds and (civilly) disagrees, calling this the "echo chamber myth". He has three key points:

1. Dean doubts blogs "get powerful by being 'yes men' to each other".
2. I've missed that bloggers link opponents and explain why they are wrong.
3. Dean would like me to point out successful blogs based on this premise.

I'll start out by making an important point: all generalisations are wrong. Put another way, there are exceptions to every rule.

Sortapundit has a study of Instapundit's linkage patterns which highlights my point. Now it's impossible to ever read anywhere near as many blogs as one would like, and Dean is right that Glenn Reynolds does sometimes link to both sides of debates and those who disagree with him. But Sortapundit's study demonstrates this feedback loop perfectly: the same blogs cross referring and linking. It's not a matter of "yes men"; it's a matter of like-minded people re-enforcing each other's views. Look at the list of those linked by Glenn: most if not all of those blogs have similar opinions and views. There's your example, Dean.

Bryan in Dean's comments notes that many bloggers consider other blogs important sources of information but also ranked newspapers and news portals as significant sources. That makes perfect sense - blogs aren't generally trying to become news sources themselves (although occassionally they are, such as Captain Ed at the moment). But that's not relevant here. I'm not talking about news sources. I'm talking about linkage and opinion.

Plenty of people talk about the "long tail". While I have no proof, I suspect that to a large extent this echo chamber effect is a natural consequence of many blog readers also being bloggers. The blogger will read from their blogroll and that roll will rightly contain those "big" blogs with whom the blogger prefers. It is a human tendancy that we prefer like minded people...just think of your friends. You may differ, perhaps even over politics, but you will share many of the same values and ideas. It's a core element of friendship. Blog linkage can be thought of the same. Just in mainstream media, the big blogs largely lead the daily blog agenda, and smaller blogs take that lead and link to similar pieces. That's how the echo chamber effect flows.

That's not to say bloggers don't ever link to those with differing views. Dean is right that bloggers love to link and discuss why they are wrong. This current exchange is a perfect example of that. But in the main, at least for the blogs I follow, this kind of exchange is rare. It's the exception. In my reading I find the same posts being referred to with similar comments/thoughts by similar bloggers. If it's to link to an "opposing" blogger, it more often than not consists of ad hominem attacks rather than reasoned discource.

Coming back to Sortapundit's piece. The top ranks of blogging tend to be stable. Big bloggers are big for a reason. I haven't done the numbers but certainly in the almost 2 years I've followed blogs the main ones have not changed a gerat deal. The only new "big blogs" are either journalists joining the medium or those that are more extreme than existing big bloggers.

I find this comment by Dean interesting: It is true that in the final few months of the election I was probably linking a lot less lefty blogs. Why? I couldn't bear the nastiness. The concentrated hatred spewed at and about Bush nauseated me. Even then, I still occasionally linked Kerry supporters like Kevin Drum and Andrew Sullivan. Perhaps the 2004 election was a particularly polarised time in the blogosphere, just as it was in the USA. But that statement by Dean is backing what I am saying. The "nastiness" is not as prevelant at the moment but it's still there. (As an aside it's interesting that comment implies Dean is "right" even though his previous paragraph argues against that).

Scott Kirwin asks the same above referenced study be redone in a non-election year. I'm all for that. I suspect the results would not differ significantly. I'd dearly love to have more time to provide more and better examples as proof of my thesis. Until I get that time I'll leave it to each reader to decide if my original premise - that more extreme bloggers get more readers and links and real debate is rare - is correct based on their own reading.

I don't deny civil debates occur in the blogosphere. We're in the middle of one now. But they are the exceptions, not the rule. That's the shame of it.