Does the Internet Represent a More Democratic Medium of Information - Essay Example

? Introduction Democratic media details a concept of structuring media along democratic lines rather than purely commercial and/or ideological lines. In alignment with the concept of democracy itself, democratic media pursues transparency, inclusiveness, one-individual-one-vote, plus other key concepts of democracy as principles of operation. Democratic media represent media whose key objectives centres on core attributes: inform, be open, accountable, and independent. This contrasts to the notion that media should be overseen by commercial operations and with the sole agenda of turning a profit from providing media and where the media mirrors the opinions and values of the owner and/or advertiser, rather than the users. The concept of democratic media is also in contrast to state-run operations in which the media embodies the value system of the state itself. As such, democratic media can be highlighted by its structure and roles. With regard to structure, democratic media is essentially organized and overseen by ordinary citizens or their grassroots organizations; in terms of functions, democratic media, as a matter of priority, pursue serving the informational, cultural, and other communication needs of members of the public from which the media constitute or represent (Gaur 2006, p.6). Majority of the world media, today, can be regarded as embroiled in a hyper-commercialized agitation. In most countries, fewer than ten transnational media conglomerates control much of the media with almost every aspect of media culture under commercial exploitation right from sports, education, and arts. For some, this trend of concentration of media power and the resultant commercialization of public discourse spells a disaster. An informed and active citizenry relies on the media in exercising its public service role and popular government need popular information, or ways of attaining it to be considered democratic (Bennett 2007, p.22). The case for media rests on two broad propositions: first, media play critical roles in social, political, economic, and cultural functions within contemporary democracies. In such societies, media can be regarded as the principal source of political information and admittance to public debate, and the platform to an informed, participating, self-governing citizenry (Gaur 2006, p.7). Democracy necessitates a media system that avails the masses with a wide range of opinion and analysis and debate on critical issues, mirrors the diversity of citizens, and fosters public accountability on the premise of powers-that-be and the powers-that-want-be (Bennett 2007, p.24). Second, media structuring, as exemplified by patters of ownership, subsidy, management, and regulations, are a critical determinant of media content. Given the non-competitive nature of media markets, the assertion that the media in contemporary society “gives people what they want” is unconvincing, to the exception of one media-the internet. Most media firms possess enough market power to dictate the content that can be perceived as most profitable to them (Cohen 2005, p.3). An easy route to this end (profitability) features increasing commercialism facilitated by a large number on ads, enhanced influence by advertisers over the non-advertising content, programming that yields to merchandising, and all forms of cross promotions with non-media forms. For any media to be considered democratic, it must wean itself the negativities associated with media ownership, regulation, management, and subsidy (Hoggart 2004, p.2). As such, the media system must eliminate the enormous power held by selected corporations and advertisers that dictate the media culture. The recent success witnessed by the commercial media can be attributed to a number of factors: commercial media operate at all geographical levels as highlighted by the Intra and inter-corporate connections exchange content. Commercial media all collectively and individually lobby to bring strategic influence to bear on inter-governmental entities at both national and local level. Furthermore, there are numerous cross inter-linkages between the varied strands of commercial media not only in terms of ownership, but also with regard to strategic goals, lobbying, cross-marketing, plus other mutually reinforcing strategies (Cohen 2005, p.1). Each medium pursues to project a concise strategy (individually and collectively). This broadly contrasts democratic media that: mainly originate locally; frequently suffer from existential doubt and motivated by a wide range of political and social concerns or narrow interests; it is only in rare cases that democratic media is able to establish a concise identity among the public and collectively they do not readily manifest a discernible unifying thread; fails to have secure economic bases as it depends on an insecure economic base depicted by scarce local resources and temporary external support; and, democratic media rarely engage in strategic planning (whether individually or collectively) (Cohen 2005, p.2). The internet as a Democratic Medium The internet has heralded immense changes in the manner in which people interact with the world. The internet can be conceived as a hybrid medium as it responds to the desire for identification amid rising surface-level diversification. In terms of output, the internet has fostered means to exchange information globally. Furthermore, the internet has facilitated the capability of the masses to share information and, in so doing, has raised the consciousness and collaborative action of the masses. The internet allows people to exchange information amongst themselves and clarify what they have in common and can support the move towards cooperative action and strategic development. Collaboration, in this case, extends beyond the media sector by harnessing the strength in numbers (Rodman 2007, p.1). Contemporary media technologies have generated fresh ways of communicating and reaching audiences. The nature of the political media product has been altered as it remains inextricably permeated with entertainment content. Electronic media in the contemporary society now dominate the “new media” era compared to the past whereby technologies such as the internet have made conventional media such as print communication to launch online equivalents to their newspapers and magazines (Sparks 2007, p.6). Moreover, the substance, structure, and approach have been dramatically altered. New-style electronic formats, as depicted by chat rooms and internet discussion groups, have generated fresh public spaces and availed unparalleled opportunities for political discourse (Doveling et al. 2011, p.4). It is evident that the transformation that the media system has witnessed in the recent past has significant implications for democratic citizenship, especially owing to the fact that the “new media” has significantly influenced audiences’ relationships to mass media: nevertheless, perspectives centring on the “democratic potential” of the new media and related prospects for democratic political system differ widely (Schudson 1978, p.5). Participatory Media The internet medium can be regarded as one of the most participatory medium that the society enjoys today. The internet can be regarded as a relatively recent phenomenon and represents a progressive set of media that fosters the politics of inclusion as opposed to the exclusion in community formation (Briggs 2009, p.92). The social media, which represent internet-based applications that derive from the ideological and technological platforms of Web 2.0, allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content, besides fostering media interactivity. These developments, as exhibited by social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, viral videos, blogs, and You Tube, are distinct in so far as they require participation from the users. The internet has generated a fresh wave of innovative forms of media forms media art, aesthetics, activism, and collocation (Green 2010, p.1). In the social and interactive media environments, participation encapsulates the user’s active intervention in media content, structure, and form (such as in video gaming, texting, chatting, and tweeting, as well as interactive art where an artwork will only be complete by the participation of users). It also encompasses the formation of communities of participants (such as the gamer’s participation within the community of gamers). Furthermore, internet services such as social media allow the exchange of information (uncensored) between the chatters and tweeters), therefore, yielding to the constitution of virtual communities (Hoggart 2004, p.4). As a medium, the internet has been successful in keeping commercial use out of the way (such as through outright prohibition on commercial use). Indeed, the internet is a democratic medium given that any user with the right technology is at liberty of producing his or her online medium; any gamer can interact freely with a user interface to stream-in feedback on a video device. Furthermore, any spectator can be enquired to respond to an intelligent (architectural or spatial) set up within n art gallery, a public space, or museum. The inclusiveness (participation and interactivity) of the new media makes the internet a sensation medium that is democratic. Furthermore, the practices of the internet have significantly revolutionized the practices of citizenship whereby the citizen’s participation within the public life, knowledge, citizen deliberation, and mobilization elevated to a whole new level. As a participatory media, the internet has been able to negotiate with surveillance, control devices and data collecting that facilitate participation (Briggs 2009, p.91). The internet’s most significant contribution has been the notion f unmediated many-to-many communication on a large-scale through various modes such as news groups. The fresh species of communication has largely disregarded the boundaries inherent in the broadcast media (such as print, TV, or radio). The reality of the internet as a democratic medium embodied by the notion of massive digital network that bears open standards, which are universal and inexpensive to access to a broad range of communication media and models (Curran and Gurevitch 2000, p.5). The connection between media and participation raises serious questions regarding the overarching question of the function of the media within the development of democracy in diverse social political context and historical periods (as demonstrated by the Arab spring). Some observers assert that, the internet has heralded a fresh catalyst, which has instigated a populist political movement by awarding citizens with an enhanced access to the political world compared to ever before (Briggs 2009, p.92). This viewpoint demonstrates that the internet can stir political interest among the mass public as ordinary citizens are able to establish meaningful and effective engagement within the political arena, which previously was essentially the domain of elites (Green 2010, p.4). The internet allows: active participation of the citizen’s in the generation, analysis, and dissemination of information while simultaneously dictating its structure substance, and form; the active and artistic restructuring of spectatorial participation; as well as the citizen’s participation within the re-configuration of public spheres, spaces, and communities (Wilkins and Christians 2009, p.12). In a significant way, the internet fosters direct forms of democracy via media-user interactivity. The pursuit of community formation and connectivity underpins the contemporary practices of participatory media such as the internet. Equitable information access, coupled with freedom of expression, remain frequently perceived as a critical aspect of a democratic society as citizens remain well informed and enlightened (Curran and Gurevitch 2000, p.4). The advent of the internet has been accompanied by an extraordinary growth in information and communication technologies, which means that more information is at the public disposal. Information is presently accessible within a plethora of digital formats and can easily be exchanged across groups, countries, and time zones, which also makes connection easy and efficient. Democracy demands a well-informed, comprehensive, and pluralistic public sphere and, as such, the media can be perceived as the creators and “editors” of this public sphere (Doveling et al. 2011, p.8). Access to information is central to the prosperity of democracy as it ensures that citizens make responsible, informed choices, instead of acting out of ignorance or misinformation. The media play a critical role in shaping a healthy democracy and can be regarded as the backbone of democracy. Conclusion It is evident that the "new" media (internet) has captured popular consciousness and evolved to become the new electronic support for democracy. This draws from the unfettered speech inherent in the internet where news groups, mailing lists and chat rooms have found a new platform where democracy is elevated. Indeed, the internet media represent media whose key objectives rest on core attributed of a democratic medium: informing, be open, accountable, and independent. The internet, as it presently exists, does indeed manifest several attributed that reinforce thinking of it as a democratic medium. Part of this premise derives from the design principles laid down during its early evolution. The absence of centralized control (as manifested, by the capability of data packets, to spotlight alternative routes to their destination if the urge arises) indicates to the majority of people that censorship or other attempts directed at gaining control will be frustrated. Other attributes that make the internet a democratic medium stems from the social design of the media from the early days whereby the internet strongly fosters libertarian support for free speech, and the sharing culture embedded in its design that pervades nearly all spheres of internet use makes it a democratic medium. Reference List Bennett, W.L. (2007). News: The politics of illusion, New York, Pearson Longman. pp. 20-25. Briggs, A. (2009). A social history of the media: from Gutenberg to the Internet, Cambridge, Polity. pp.91-120. Cohen, E. D. (2005). News incorporated: Corporate media ownership and its threat to democracy, Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Book. pp. 1-10. Curran, J. & Gurevitch, M. eds (2000). Mass media and society, London, Arnold. Pp. 1-6. Doveling, K. et al. eds (2011). The Routledge handbook of emotions and mass media, London, Routledge. pp. 4-10. Gaur, S. (2006). Dimensions of mass media and communication, Jaipur, Book Enclave. Pp. 6-12. Green, L. (2010). The internet: An introduction to new media, Oxford, Berg. Pp. 1-14. Hoggart, R. (2004). Mass media in a mass society: myth and reality, London: Continuum. 0p.1-24 Rodman, G. (2007). Mass media in a changing world: history, industry, controversy, Boston, Mass.: McGraw-Hill. Pp.1-8. Schudson, M. (1978). Discovering the news: A social history of American newspapers, New York: Basic Books. Pp.4-7. Sparks, C. (2007). Globalization, development and the mass media, London andNew Delhi: Sage Publications. pp.6-8. Wilkins, L. & Christians, C.G. (2009). The handbook of mass media ethics, New York: Routledge. pp.12-14. Read More