Abstract

While the Internet has been used to galvanise people for the collective good, many have voiced concerns over the noise and vitriol present online and polarisation. In Singapore where the government regulates traditional mainstream media such as print and broadcast, the online space has been described as a "Wild Wild West" rife with rumours, untruths and misinformation. Such developments do not only exert a potential negative effect on the deliberative nature of public discourse but also skew bias towards the online space, affecting the ability of online users to communicate with authority and power. This study seeks to examine the rationality of the cyberspace through using a new "rationality" framework to analyse political discourse online. Comprising objectivity, emotionality and partisanship, the rationality framework was applied to a content analysis of 197 blogs with political content in 2014. The analysis indicated that the online political space was not the Wild Wild West that it was touted to be with significant levels of objectivity and non-partisanship. There was a stark absence of emotional discourse, and relationships were observed between bloggers' anonymity and rationality. Cognisant of academia's and policymakers' interest on the quality and effects of online discourse, the proposed analytical framework and the study findings hold implications for both developed and developing countries.