Its a bit late but...

Digital Media and Democracy: Introduction

Mass media, once assumed to be a check on political action, is more appropriately viewed as a creator of reality. Mass media is used to create public opinion and to enforce public opinion as truth. Dissenting voices are drowned out through volume or limited to fields outside of official journalism such as The Daily with John Stewart and The Colbert Report. When created truths fail to deliver on expectations or are exposed as being false a new truth is created. While blame is assigned, most often to the very outlets that created the new reality, there is little or no accountability for the creation and previous reality or its consequences. In scenes surprisingly reminiscent of the novel “1984”, individuals and even the majority of the public accept the new reality as having always been the reality despite past actions supportive alternative realities. Refusal to support the new reality results in marginalization.

The rise of new media offers an outlet for alternative voices of dissent. Spurred by distrust of mass media outlets individuals are increasingly turning to blogs and other websites dominated by user created content for information on world and local events. While this has lead to some accountability in mass media outlets there are valid concerns as to whether this will lead to a public space supportive of democracy. An important concern is that individuals of lower socio economic status (SES) and individuals of color are less likely to be able to participate in this forum. Even if participation were universal there is no guarantee that the voices in this new forum will be any more accountable than those in the previous system. Many of the voices from the previous system are moving, albeit clumsily, into the new forum. While these outlets have suffered financially as a result of the new forum many of them have the resources to allow for them to absorb these losses during a transitional period. A new forum for these previous outlets does not necessitate a more thoughtful and accountable message.

Digital Media and Democracy: Chapter One
(Interview of Robert McChesney)

In 2002 the FCC changed the rules on media ownership. The new rules allowed for all forms of mass media within any given market to be owned by one entity. This change unified and motivated diverse groups in opposition to the new rules. Robert McChesney argues that while press in itself is not necessarily predictive of democracy a free and diverse press is essential for a democracy. While viewing the emerging forms of press on the internet as a necessary and positive phenomenon for free press they are not sufficient in and of themselves to support a democracy. Individuals must also have the ability to make meaningful choices between providers of mass media.

Digital Media and Democracy: Chapter Three (Communicative Capitalism)

Communicative Capitalism: The argument that through providing a forum for debate accessible to the general population the will of that population will eventual emerge not only on outcome but on significant issues.

Fantasy of Abundance: The abundance of communication does not mean that interaction is occurring. Without interaction no consensus is possible.

Fantasy of Participation: Participation in online forums does not necessarily translate into real world activism or change. Often participation in activism is projected on a technological entity without real activism on the part of the individual. (Example given is Napster. While the movement represented by Napster had support of individuals there was no marching in the streets to save the movement Napster represented when it was under threat – Napster has a Facebook page with over 13,000 fans who likely did not write their congressional representative during the lawsuit that shut Napster down or did they become fans after the fact? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slacktivism).

Fantasy of Wholeness: Messages posted on the internet are not automatically distributed to the majority of the users of the internet. With the exception of a few high volume site the majority of internet users have a very local network of web addresses that they participate in.

Convergence Culture: Intro

Convergence Culture is the idea that different forms of technology increasing borrow content and purpose from other forms of technology. While it can result in the elimination of one form of technology (typewriter supplanted by the word processing program) it does not always result in this outcome (radio was not made obsolete by television). Often the older technology will adapt to a new purpose. While it is generally assumed that computers and the internet are absorbing the purpose and content of other technologies through the convergence culture this is not always true (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEGU8gijSvw) .
Convergence Culture: Chapter One

The internet provides a forum for communities of knowledge to be created. These communities use the collective skills of their members to problem solve. As with other communities these communities create their own rules for acceptance into the community, behavior in the community, and the status of community members. In the case of the Survivor Spoilers community acceptance was based on past performance. A new member of the community would not be accepted until they demonstrated knowledge that was reliable. Behavior in the community was dictated commonly excepted norms. One of these norms was that knowledge presented was the focus of intense scrutiny. Status in the community was dictated on what one could provide to the community, often based highly specialized skills or unique access not possessed by other community members. These communities of knowledge exploit and are exploited by other communities. This can be a mutually beneficial process. In the case of the Survivor Spoilers the show fed both information and misinformation in order to raise ratings while the community gained a pastime to engage in. Communities of knowledge are often temporary. They can be disbanded as the community looses interest in pursuing the knowledge of as the knowledge becomes widespread.

Questions:

Is there anything that suggests the new forms for media will be any more likely to support democracy than the old forms of media?

Why do non-traditional media outlets, such as The Daily Show, avoid being drowned out when they call for accountability in mass media?

Does meaningful activism beyond political campaigns take place online?

Did anyone else feel the Survivor Spoilers were a bit creepy?