But the question remained: Would blogs really matter that much, and if so would they alter the American political system for the better or worse? David Perlmutter, a professor of journalism at the University of Kansas, has plunged into cyberspace as both a researcher and blogger to look for answers.
Despite the "potty-mouthed diatribes" and other excesses he encountered, Perlmutter welcomes the political-blogging phenomenon as a force that is reinvigorating American democracy. He says that the online publications are empowering ordinary citizens to "reach large numbers of people with personal messages" and to build voluntary associations for political purpose in the best American tradition. In sum, he says, bloggers have the potential to "stimulate political participation and in turn make us more responsible citizens."
Perlmutter does not say that every Tom, Dick, and Harry is joining the parade. He cites studies indicating that the typical blogger belongs to a fairly narrow demographic slice of high-income, well-educated, and (perhaps not surprisingly) tech-savvy people.
All the same, he says that blogging promotes democracy because the regular participants are disproportionately "opinion leaders," who "make a mighty impact." His point would be more convincing if he could demonstrate that the blogging of such people was a force for good, which he manifestly does not do.
Three years ago, Perlmutter bravely signed on as a guest commentator at what he describes as two "hot, partisan political blogs." (He does not identify them.) Too thin-skinned for the ferocity of the interactive to-and-fro, he lasted merely a week.
Bloggers he met while researching the book deport themselves like "warriors going to battle," he says. Perlmutter explains why: From behind the cover of blogs' anonymity emerge "flame wars, psychotic rants, partisan attacks and just plain folly."
