Now here’s an interesting article.
Basically, AOL’s youth filters–which prevent children from accessing sites of an inappropriate nature–have, at present, a conservative slant. They can visit the RNC website but not that of the DNC; the Libertarian Party page but not the Green Party page; the websites of gun manufacturers but not those of certain gun-control organizations. (The Million Mom March, for Pete’s sake?)
The explanation given is that the filters operate on a whitelist basis; that is, sites are submitted for approval rather than restriction. Instead of there being a list of forbidden sites, then, there is a list of approved ones (kinda like the difference between French and British common law, huh?). So if there’s a conservative slant to the approved sites, it’s presumably 'cause more conservative sites have been submitted for approval than liberal ones (the DNC ain’t hardly a liberal organization, but that’s a topic for another thread).
Now, this whitelisting strikes me as an inefficient and o’ercautious way to construct a filter, though I suppose it ensures that seemingly innocent sites like the infamous whitehouse.com will be automatically excluded (kids can access sex sites despite the filters under certain conditions, however, as the article describes).
Leaving that aside, and dismissing the notion of ideological bias on the part of AOL, what’s most interesting about this story is that it demonstrates once more the extent to which conservative groups in America have a greater degree of institutional organization and concerted activism than do their counterparts to the left. Conservative think-tanks are more prolific, more often quoted, and better funded; conservative hosts dominate political talk radio and, to a lesser extent, TV’s public affairs programs; and there’s certainly been a greater willingness on the part of Republican politicians to assume the role of pit bull on policy issues, pursuing their goals combatively and aggressively (compare the Democratic Congress under Reagan to the Republican Congress under Clinton).
There are various reasons for this: Among them, wealthy people tend to be fiscally conservative (which is one of the reasons the claim of a “liberal media” is ridiculous, as editors, anchorpersons, bureau chiefs, and publishers do more to determine the bounds of discourse than do reporters, and are more wealthy and more conservative than most Americans–cite upon request); there is active public support for the conservative agenda (it’s easier to get fired up about school prayer than campaign finance reform); and Republicans, especially the so-called “right-wing fringe” have relished their roles as Congressional minorities for so long that their approach to politics has become naturally adversarial and reactionary.
Anyway, those were my thoughts on reading that article. Anyone else?
), give in.