I’m not really into political “blogs,” those supposed bastions of free thought and the truth. It’s not that I don’t like free-thinking and the truth; I’m going to believe that they are among us if I want to believe that, so there. It’s more that, when it comes to getting the news, blogs really aren’t enough. You take a risk when you read only blogs, or even primarily blogs. Blogs, even the most informative ones, are just opinions. There are many wonderful political blogs. I enjoy checking out the guys and gals on Politico or Talking Points Memo as much as the next person (a fair bit, but not as much as a sandwich). But, don’t forget, bloggers serve a different purpose than reporters. They might give you the truth, their version of it, a made-up version (a lie?), a quarter of it or two eggs, hash browns and a side of it.

Read blogs. Just don’t exclusively read blogs. It may not just be bad for you, but for your little dog too the polity! Here’s how:

 Blogs aren’t always in the business of killing Nazis the truth. At worst, blogs can spread a lot of misinformation. At best, they’re still opinions, even the scholarly ones. The best arguments can be selective about the information or data they employ. You know how in a government class you have to read a bunch of articles about the same thing? Bummer! But, hey, you get to make up your own mind. Thinking for yourself is the coolest!

 According to the Institute of Policy, Democracy, and the Internet (IPDI), 56 percent of respondents to a survey about the readership of political blogs feel that such blogs enhance political discussion; 54 percent believe that they are good for democratic debate. This does not square with the actual behavior of bloggers and blog-readers. Henry Farrell, Eric Lawrence and John Sides of GWU have compiled some of the latest data in a paper presented to the Midwest Political Science Association. They found that bloggers are far more likely to link to other bloggers and writers that echo their own political beliefs. Blogs may facilitate discussion but seemingly only within groups of generally like-minded individuals and rarely with ideological opponents.

 The good news is that most of you out there in the cyber-matrix who are checking out these blogs are already some of the most politically engaged. IPDI found that 77 percent of daily political blog readers have contacted a politician. 40 percent have attended political meetings or rallies. The unfortunate result of this lovely political agency is that you are also much more inclined to self-select information. Back to those guys at Gdubs: “(Blogs) gather news from the mainstream media and highlight key stories and events; provide commentary, often ideological or partisan, that helps readers understand these stories and events ... Blog readers are likely delegating these tasks at least in part to blog authors.” The result is that people find confirmation of their own pre-existing beliefs in blogs, and do not, as much as might be hoped, challenge their own political assumptions. We seek “kinship, not crossfire.”

 The same paper makes the point that this is where blog selection and social networking interact. We self-select our networks on facebook or wherever. If I think you’re mad stoopid or are a mean person with cooties, I am not going to friend you. Or — ahem — more specifically, we use our social networks to broadcast what we already think. I’m not going to friend you and then wait to find out if you have cooties. We become fans of the Obama “brand;” we r.s.v.p. to rallies against our least-favorite policies. We put up Cornell Republicans/Dems/Libs/Marxist/etc. “bumper stickers” on our facebook walls. And, of course, we post and send our favorite blog posts to our friends. As was humorously phrased in the Economist’s Tech Quarterly: “Activism or slacktivism? Rather than genuinely being more politically engaged, they (young folks) may simply wish to broadcast their activism to their peers.”

 Beyond simple confirmation of what might be erroneous beliefs, blogs can perpetuate polarization. Highly politically aware blog readers are also more likely to be highly partisan. Blogs that reflect those sentiments can effectively push online readership further to the right or left, without facilitating any dialogue with opposing views. It adds to the worrying trend in our political bodies — a widening gulf between parties, which grows ever more vast until neither side can even believe in the humanity of the other. The fact persists: this country has a giant net in the middle of it and no one came to play and everyone left their rackets at home. Well I suppose we may say that the Democrats have struck up a gambling game on their side, put a vote in the pot and gotten some funding for your state’s Medicaid. Got to lose some (ethics) to win some? The bloggers are sitting in the stands, egging on the stalemate.

Of course, you may be that person who’s read it all, seen it all and eaten it all. I, however, am not, and neither are a lot of people. I suppose I haven’t done an empirical study. All right. Here goes it: raise your hands, people who have read everything ...

Cricket. Cricket ...

Right so; don’t succumb to bumper sticker personal politics. The more we only look for echoes of our own view the less compelling and well reasoned our opinions become. Challenge yourselves! Read an article by a strange dingbat who thinks that aliens are real and have infiltrated the OMB. I actually found that piece quite compelling — you think Orszag was getting all that play without alien technology?

Give the news networks and print media a break. Yes, their binary, “balanced” reporting is bothersome, but they’re not going to tell you a lie, lest they chop down their Rather tree. There is a sense that bloggers are off the grid, true reporters that have a real authenticity. Even if that was true five years ago, that is not true today, when the Huffington Post has a seat in White House briefing room. CNN and friends are good for the overview. The opinion columnists of our nation's most well-respected papers are awesome resources, but that doesn't mean you won't come to a different conclusion. Krugman's brain might be worth more than yours on the black market, but don't discount your own analytical skills. 

MOST IMPORTANTLY, read studies for yourselves. If an article references some particular research, go find it. What’s their methodology? What’s the standard deviation, guy? (Soc 301 rears its head). And, for Pete’s sake, read the damn Economist.

Look at everything with an acerbic eye and be your own muckraker. That’s the real benefit of the internet; you, personally, have the opportunity to falsify anyone and any argument. Fly on, seekers of truth. Fly on.

Rabia Muqaddam is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be contacted at rmuqaddam@cornellsun.com. The Argument Clinic appears alternative Fridays this semester.