Talk:Media echo chamber

Please see Echo_chamber_(media) WNDL42 (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Trying to create this article from...

The term "media echo chamber" can refer to any situation in which information, ideas or beliefs are amplified or reinforced by transmission inside an "enclosed" space. Observers of journalism in the mass media describe an echo chamber effect in media discourse. One purveyor of information will make a claim, which many like-minded people then repeat, overhear, and repeat again (often in an exaggerated or otherwise distorted form) until most people assume that some extreme variation of the story is true.

Similarly, the term is also used to name the media effect, whereby an incorrect story (often a "smear") is reported through a biased channel, often first appearing in a new-media domain, and it is this simple presence of a story which is reported in more reputable mainstream media outlets, often using intermediary sources or commentary for reference, independent of the factual merits of the story. The overall effect often being to legitimize false claims in the public eye, through sheer volume of reporting and media references, even if the majority of these reports acknowledge the original factual inaccuracy of the story.

WNDL42 (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this condition arising in online communities, participants may find their own opinions constantly echoed back to them, and in doing so reinforce a certain sense of truth that resonates with individual belief systems. This can create some significant challenges to critical discourse within an online medium. The echo-chamber effect may also impact a lack of recognition to large demographic changes in language and culture on the Internet if individuals only create, experience and navigate those online spaces that reinforce their "preferred" world view. Another emerging term used to describe this "echoing" and homogenizing effect on the Internet within social communities is "cultural tribalism". The Internet may also be seen as a complex system (e.g., emergent, dynamic, evolutionary), and as such, will at times eliminate the effects of positive feedback loops (i.e., the echo-chamber effect) to that system, where a lack of perturbation to dimensions of the network, prohibits a sense of equilibrium to the system. Complex systems that are characterized by negative feedback loops will create more stability and balance during emergent and dynamic behaviour.

See also "Echo chamber as a media metaphor" hereWNDL42 (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a widely used term

WNDL42 has created this article for the sole purpose of linking to it to prove his case in a disputed article. I don't believe in using Wikilinks to explain points in this way.

He seems to believe it is widely used in the media - I think I can prove that it isn't. I did this using his "myung media "echo chamber" example in a previous (still unanswered) discussion on my Talk page quoted here (WNDL42 had claimed a massive Google presence for the term):

"The Kewords for a Google search would have to be: myung media "echo chamber" -wikipedia. If you type that in you get 986. Click on "page 5" (you must click on the last or latter pages with Google to get the REAL figure) and you get 318. Most of those are blogs. Do the major papers use it? That's what I meant by "real-terms" popularity. It is quite easy to get a seemingly 'high' figure on Google, especially as it trawls so much - including millions of mirrored pages etc.

Surprisingly, if you search for: "echo chamber" -wikipedia: Google gives "about 472,000" results. Click on page 10 and the total become 843! So not hugely used even on its own - and how much outside of the USA, I wonder? As "echo chamber" was originally to do with sound effects - many people refer to that. There is a band by the name too (so lots of youtube etc).

Comparing the 318 "myung media" figure with the 'mixed' total of 843 is interesting, especially with the amount of blogs involved (not mention musical terms). Perhaps the word "echo chamber" has grown via a kind-of "echo chamber" effect!!!"

I notice in one of the references that it's the name of a book. Should we advertise that in this article? I don't think the links reflect a massive Google presence at all. The same amount of text in this article, is written by WNDL42 on the original acoustic "echo chamber" article too! I think we should just keep to that article - and make sure the use is not exaggerated too. Wikipedia isn't here to push any rivers.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed "Fox News" from See also links

As much as I would probably agree it needs to go there, it's unsourced and clearly NPOV. If anyone can find something concrete to establish its relevancy there, we can add it back. --WayneMokane (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)