We have explored how the media today is largely dominated by a few gigantic corporations and how news organizations have expanded in numbers, with varied and relatively low levels of trust (this recent Pew study is amazing and I strongly urge you to read through as much of it as possible). There are also many indicators that suggest that political news and media are still dominated largely by the political and business elites that have controlled and shaped political messaging for most of American political history. Politicians and political elites still appear to set the political agenda in many ways.
However there are many who are articulating a new vision about political discourse in America and across the globe. They argue that the tools of the internet are providing individuals and organizations new opportunities to get their messages out. Citizen journalism is changing the role that the public plays in political media, and movements from the revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria (to name a few) to the Occupy movement here in the U.S. have shown the power that the people can have through the use of the internet, mobile media, and social networking. In the case of Egypt, it even led the government to try to turn off the internet.
Are these examples of what political discourse will be in the emerging information political communication revolution or just exceptions to the rule that political communication will always be controlled by the small numbers of political elites? Is political power becoming more democratic as more and more citizens and organizations gain access and have the ability to cheaply and easily reach a global audience, or are they merely using new tools in an ever changing game of catch up, dominated by the political elites and drowned out by the noise of millions of voices online? What role will the media play in the democratic discourse and democratic politics of the future?
Feel free to respond to any of these questions and expand your discussion to events and politics outside of the United States. Please share important examples and add links if you think they are helpful. As much as possible please remember to respond to one another.
I am a huge proponent of the Internet and I believe it has fostered democracy more than any other media outlet before. Information is golden and empowering. Access to information leads to a stable, more informed society. An informed society is exposed to different viewpoints, ideas, cultures, values, and is therefore more aware of its own rights, and the principles of democracy. Using the internet, anyone can be a pundit, a reporter, or a political organizer as they can use tools such as text messages, e-mails, social media, blogs, video, and websites. It fosters not just one-to-one communications, but many-to-many communications. For activism that is not centrally organized, or for activists who don’t have the resources for organizing events or rallies, the internet provides a great avenue for e-activism. It provides a great platform for political discussion, debate and deliberation that leads to an increase in political participation, which also fosters democracy. Internet and concepts like e-governance, help create a transparency between the government and its citizens. It helps them understand each others problems a little more clearly, and builds and closer relationship between the two. This leads to a more efficient governance, and assists in building trust between the government and the people.
ReplyDeleteThe Internet can also help a nation externalize its internal conflict, and hold its government accountable by exposing its deeds to the international regime. On January 1, 2008, as word spread throughout Kenya that incumbent presidential candidate Mwai Kibaki had rigged the recent presidential election, text messages urging violence spread across the country. A group of Kenyans in Nairobi launched an online campaign to draw local and global attention to the violence taking place in their country. Within weeks they had documented in detail hundreds of incidents of violence that would have otherwise gone unreported, and received hundreds of thousands of site visits from around the world, sparking increased global media attention.
After the rigged elections under Hosni Mubarak held in late 2010, the digital active Egyptian youth decided to take matters into their own hands, and force a change. There was no freedom of assembly in Egypt, so protests or political activism were banned. This began an online revolution using social media to vent frustrations, discuss ideas, and organize events/protests. The fall of the government in the neighboring Tunisia, acted as a spark which led to the Egyptian revolution that lasted 18 days and led to the fall of the Egyptian government. During the revolution, videos recorded using phones and cameras were posted on sites like YouTube and seen all over the world. In an unprecedented move, the Egyptian government fearing the impact of technology, shut down the Internet and the phone networks for 5 days. The lack of internet access fueled the anger amongst the people, who now left the confines of their homes and took the revolutions onto the streets. Although there were many other factors and reasons that led to the start of the Egyptian revolution, social-media and the internet played a crucial role in its organization, and ultimately the success.
Personally I think access to information is key for citizens to gain knowledge, be aware of their rights, think on their own, and make rational decisions. The internet provides fast and easy access to information from around the world, and consequently, is key in promoting democratic principles.
In an environment of praise of internet and the social media, it is interesting to take the “devil’s advocate” position in this matter. The change in the media structure is not likely to lead to a democratization of the political process. People using internet for political purposes are still elites, a very small minority which is not representative of the global electorate. Those “news junkies” (Gibson) are the elitist form of activists. The access to cheap and unlimited information won’t trigger actual interest for politics, especially since there is so much more on the internet. Why would someone stop watching cute kittens’ videos on YouTube to learn about the local candidate and his/her positions on crucial political issues? I also agree with Katie, information is key for democracy; however, there are still inequalities to its access on the new media. With the fragmentation of the audience, as discussed by Prior, no sign of democratization is shown. This is also the main learning from the Pew study. Conservatives and liberals do not trust, watch, and get informed through the same media, and this trend is not likely to be reversed. For example, nearly half of consistent conservatives on Facebook “mostly see posts that match their politics”, while consistent liberals are “most likely to block others based on political content”. Even if some changes occurred in campaigning, with the use of internet as a new tool, how does this really impact the “realpolitik”? It in fact polarizes positions, simplifies them, and excludes moderation from the mockery of a debate, since there is no debate when you no longer interact with people you disagree with.
ReplyDeleteA great example to discuss is the Arab Spring. Yes, internet facilitated the actual trigger of the revolutions, because it is a great tool to mobilize large amounts of people. Now, afterwards, what is the situation of Democracy in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria or Libya? Not so great. What about the outcomes of Occupy? What were the actual achievements? The problem of internet as a political tool for mobilization is that it is too diffuse; it does not carry a consistent or uniform message. The movements cannot be successful, with the lack of “follow-up” and accountability.
This idea of the marketplace of ideas is more germane today than in its past articulations in regards to free speech crafted by the Supreme Court. In this regard today, we can see that the internet and its many outlets for expressive movements have taken our society by storm and proven to be both very influential and very helpful indeed. I do agree that such events inherently promote democratic principles. But, even from the post we can see that this is only a picture that can be painted here in America. Many countries worldwide have varying degrees over control of information, limiting access to the internet and technology in a variety of mediums, even seen with Egypt and the campaign of turning off the internet.
ReplyDeleteI more so am more concerned with how effective these means may present to such a fast paced changing demographic as our country posits. Sure we have stumbled into a technological revolution but who is to say that this is necessarily positive. We have discussed how power corresponds to media influence and I think this distinction is very important in this regard. In this sense I do agree that citizen journalism is form of catch-up, but a very complicated one at that. I feel that most of the discourse today is dominated by distinctions between fact and opinion. There are so many opinions and that often get muddled in with facts that make for a very controversial arena of news reporting.
Take the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for example and how these events are framed in the news. There are very distinct sides to the conflict and often times we see these get distorted through foreign policy relations. “Most studies point to biased coverage which gives prominence to Israeli perspectives and marginalizes Pales-tine perspectives”
http://www.academia.edu/3823652/Al-Jazeera_and_Al-Arabiya_framing_of_the_Israel-Palestine_conflict_during_war_and_calm_periods
The media I feel plays an important role in framing citizen’s opinions in the ways they present information. Objectivity should be the goal but the reality of it is far from attainable.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRebecka Bronkema
ReplyDeleteIdeally, the Internet and the wider reach of political news would further democratize our political system. But we do not live in an ideal world. The Internet is a vastness filled with more voices and opinions than ever before. With the increased noise, there is more information to wade through to get to the political ideologies/innovations/movements. For the smaller voices to be heard, they need to gain a large enough following to gain any headway in their agendas. The increase of ideas in the web has decreased the number of voices being heard. The noise, more often than not, drowns out smaller political movements and ideals. The few movements that gained ground are exceptions; they gained the following and ground to make national news and create a movement/revolution that the specific needed. These movements could have easily fallen through the cracks, but their ideas resonated with enough people that it didn’t. I believe few movements have such a universal resonance that they can make such headway in the political sphere.
I believe new media movements through the use of the Internet, mobile media and social networking allow citizens and organizations to catch up to political elites, however the process is not moving at a fast enough pace in some places. While citizen journalism is drastically changing the political atmospheres in Egypt and Syria and other places with civil unrest, it is not making a great impact in environments with societal institutions engrained in to the public’s social constructs. For example, movements like Occupy Wall Street have yet to reform the system or make any changes to our ingrained institutions.
ReplyDeleteI believe citizen journalism is so important for international news, however, in places like the U.S. I do not believe citizen journalism holds much weight. Constraints on U.S. citizen journalism include lack of credibility, infinite information and noise on the web and fragmented audiences. Traditional news organizations hold more credibility and authority than the bloggers or social media users in the U.S. In addition, there is so much information out there, that often audiences have to sort through and choose what media they watch or read. Thus, one source of untraditional media will mostly get one type of reader and a limited audience. With traditional media, on the other hand, audiences have a limited amount to choose from, thus the organizations reach a greater amount of people.
Social movements and grass roots campaigns garnered by citizens are important in today’s society, and depending on the success of the movement, they can gain an incredible amount of media and political attention. I believe that social media and the Internet is spreading political power and furthering democracy. I do not believe that this type of democracy is one that can be hindered by political elites, because the movements are too big, and citizens are taking advantage of this cheap and easy way to get their voices heard. Although this example is one that did not generate much social change, the amount of attention it received is one that could not be stopped by elites. The Kony 2012 viral video gained worldwide attention that would not have otherwise been possible. This movement started by the group Invisible Children showed the revulsion of the Ugandan war criminal Joseph Kony. With the amount of attention received, the Ugandan government had no choice but to put this issue on the agenda, and although not much was solved, the issue was still heard. This viral video was just 2 short years ago, and there has been a good amount of media change since then. It raises the question of if the Kony viral video would have been released today, how much more attention and change could have come from it. It is possible with the increasing technology and spread of political power that more social change could have come from this video. This leads me to believe that the media will play an even more important role in the future when it comes to democratic discourse.
ReplyDeleteNot to be too wishy-washy, but I think that new media is equally dominated by two competing political communication phenomena. On one hand, new media has been simply a new forum for the established elite sources to disseminate their manipulated message of reality to the masses. On the other hand, new media as undoubtedly created a boom in civic journalism that has been quintessential not only to benign political movements like the Arab Spring, but also to the recognition and empowerment of malign global terrorist organizations.
ReplyDeleteI find the notion of “democratizing” the media in America somewhat ill intentioned, in the first place. I disagree with Markus Prior, who contends that those who abstain from political news and watch entertainment (or infotainment) news instead are just as capable of engaging in civic and politic issues. Instead, I would maintain that partisanship—that comes with being a “news junkie”—is the product of and informed and strong political education. In other words, those non-partisans that choose entertainment over politics are most likely politically uneducated and their engagement or vote may not help the public good.
Finally, I would argue that if new media continues to be more accessible to the masses we wouldn’t have an increase in democracy, but rather we would have an expanded and more accessible elite. More persons can enter the elite, but the average American will remain relatively in the same position in regards to their media consumption. New media may broaden the scope of who can disseminate news, but it is far from completely dethroning the elites already in power.
Although I do agree that media has changed immensely since the latter part of the 21st century, I do not think that the media will become more democratized. I do not think the political elites will lose power. More citizens are gaining access to political discourse via social networking and use of the Internet, but I do not think that it will necessarily yield to less power for the elites. I think the elites will remain in power and control. Gibson mentions terms such as e-democracy and citizen campaigning and I fully believe what she is saying about how everyday citizens are contributing their support of candidates, but toward the end of the chapter, she mentions that even if a candidate wins and they dedicated a huge portion to citizen campaigning, there would be no way to fully promote everyone responsible, thus proving that power cannot be as easily spread as some might think. Citizen campaigning and citizen journalism will continue to grow and as it grows, more people will listen; but, news media will remain the most influential, keeping political elites in power.
ReplyDeleteI read an interesting article from The Atlantic about a book written by Francis Fukuyama, "Political Order and Political Decay." In the article, Fukuyama does not really discuss the role that new media plays on a growing democracy, but he does predict that democracy will grow in foreign countries. "Democratization will eventually turn out to be necessary to Russia's and China's very survival as unitary states," said Fukuyama. He attributes the growth of democracy to the growth of the middle class. "No bourgeois, no democracy." Should his predictions come to light, a middle class growth will demand rule of law to protect their property and then demand political participation to safeguard their social standing.
ReplyDeleteTo bring this full circle, I believe that the middle class will become savvy enough to control the political communication in the emerging information revolution. Politicians set the political agenda, but lest we forget, these politicians have had to change their strategies (like using social media) and conform their views to align (relatively) to match what the people are doing and what they want. If thought of it in this way, then we, the people, hold more “power” than what politicians, or the media, give credit. What the middle class lacks to develop this power is unity education, but when that education grows, the power will be in the hands of the people.
Political participation, whatever the degree, is always necessary in a growing democracy. There needs to be is an influx of education on media literacy in order for citizens to have the proper intellectual tools to navigate through the noise and analyze what the media has to offer.
This is Mike and I approve this message.
I agree with many points that have already been mentioned. I personally don't see the internet ever being "turned off" in the United States. This is not because news media is more reliable than traditional media but because it would take away freedom from the people. Citizen journalism, unfortunately, does not carry as much weight in the United States. It provides raw reporting of everyday happenings. And the idea that if we were to shut down the traffic, it would be taking away an outlet that gives people power to their opinion. One critique I have is the uncertainty of credibility some sources may hold. Because the internet is a passage for all people to voice their opinions and is a forum for others about any topic; it has also become more difficult to tell which websites, blogs, or writers are reliable. Has online media become more democratic? In some ways yes, there is not much restriction on what people can say on the internet. But there is a reason why certain big name news sources have more flow to their sites which is money for advertising and a loyal fan base. Could there eventually be restrictions? Yes. As we’ve seen, every news form in history such as newspapers, radios, and television networks have become owned by a smaller amount of companies. I, however, see that being difficult to achieve with the internet. If there was anything that would be able to restrict the internet, I think it would be the government. But even then, restricting what to say online wouldn’t bode well with the general public.
ReplyDeleteI think in a lot of ways, the citizen journalism around the globe as well as examples of it here in the U.S. with the Occupy movement are examples of a type of revolution. The news now runs on a 24-hour cycle. With that cycle comes the need for a constant stream of news, and news sources and consumers won’t just be looking for that information from large media outlets like CNN or MSNBC. This new form of journalism has influenced politics, and I think it will continue to have an impact on politics moving forward in a more significant way. As I mentioned though, due to the fact that the media in on this 24-hour cycle, I think it forces them in a few to talk about more news stories, which more heavily involves them in the democratic process. Whether they like it or not, more candidates and political figures are going public which puts reporters in the seat of having to constantly be looking for something new to report. Across the board, news outlets will have to be more creative when producing political stories and it’ll give more people the opportunity to be heard since reporters aren’t simply just shoveling out press releases anymore.
ReplyDelete