Participating in democracy through social media
SOCIAL MEDIA COMMENTARY, PART II
In the posting prior to this one, I inveighed against the
acrimony that defines our national conversation today, pointing to social media
as one of the facilitators, if not instigators, of uncivil discourse. Now I
would like to explore the historical context on how this came about, and, sans
incivility, show how social media is fulfilling the dream of a full
participatory democracy.
In the era before the Internet and social media, the
national media as it was constituted – namely, television, radio, newspapers,
and magazines – positioned itself as the “gatekeepers” of information. The
gatekeepers tightly controlled who could contribute to the information stream,
essentially making the consumers of media passive
consumers, receptors of information with little option to respond to it with
their own thoughts or reactions.
It wasn’t that the opinions of the general public were
deliberately suppressed – it was just difficult to reach a wide audience. In
the interest of public discourse, media outlets did provide a limited means for
the public to comment through letters-to-the-editor, opposing viewpoint
broadcast segments, and occasional public forums that might be televised or
covered by the media in some way. Nevertheless, the gatekeepers still exercised
total control over such input from the public.
In exchange for this lack of empowerment in the marketplace
of ideas, information consumers depended upon the information provided by the
gatekeepers to be objective, truthful, and reliable. Intense and fierce
competition between all the media outlets forced them to toe the line in this
regard. Media outlets were constantly vying with one another to be the first to
“scoop” the latest big news story, but prided themselves on the accuracy and
validity of such stories.
Although media outlets had their own ideological preferences, these were confined to the op/ed pages or newscasts’ commentary segments. These were areas specifically marked off as spaces where consumers would be aware that the information being presented was more subjective than objective. Nonetheless, there were still subtle ways to influence public opinion.
Although media outlets had their own ideological preferences, these were confined to the op/ed pages or newscasts’ commentary segments. These were areas specifically marked off as spaces where consumers would be aware that the information being presented was more subjective than objective. Nonetheless, there were still subtle ways to influence public opinion.
Meanwhile, those who wished to disseminate information they
felt the public should be informed of had to resort to any means available
outside of the mainstream media. For instance, those with the financial means
could purchase their own radio stations, or publish their own newspapers for
paid subscription or free distribution; at the lower end, people might publish
handbills, tracts, mimeographed newsletters, speak in public spaces, and so
forth.
The arrival of the Digital Information Age not only cracked
the walls of the old media order, it blew them apart. Talk radio, alternative
cable networks, and Internet all played a role in destroying the old media
empire’s monopoly on information. Behind the veil, unnoticed, underestimated, and
misunderstood, was a pent-up desire on the part of individuals and groups to
have their unmitigated say in the public realm or have someone speak on their
behalf.
Forced into competing with new media entities, the mask fell
of the old media’s ideological preferences, revealing the pretense and hollowness
of its purported objectivity which had already significantly eroded as the old
media’s original competition disappeared in an era of corporate mergers and
takeovers of media enterprises. Under assault by new media, the old standards
of politeness gave way to match the brash styles of new media’s messengers.
Social media completed the old media’s demise. Finally, the demos – the people – have taken control of information in ways the old media never imagined, and would never approve. What we see on Facebook and Twitter is people’s manipulation and sharing of information bereft of any sort of filters or elitist gatekeeping.
Social media completed the old media’s demise. Finally, the demos – the people – have taken control of information in ways the old media never imagined, and would never approve. What we see on Facebook and Twitter is people’s manipulation and sharing of information bereft of any sort of filters or elitist gatekeeping.
On the surface, it would seem that this type of “Wild West”
information freedom is not beneficial to democracy, because democracy depends
on the orderly and voluntary acceptance of majority rule, not anarchy. But
despite the partisan memes, the fake news links, the hyperbole, and the over-the-top,
mean-spirited comments, people are pre-empting media outlets and their
stranglehold on information.
For example, mobile devices are used to capture and upload
videos and pictures of events as they are happening to social media sites, or
report on them through text messages. In ways such as these, the public takes
charge of information streams in real time, controlling the news narratives as
much, if not more, than media outlets do.
And even before the rise of “smartphones” and the like, the
early Internet was already making inroads into mass media domination through
the one-click mass e-mailing option. Consequently,
all these new developments have opened up a relatively closed system of
information dissemination into a wide and unfettered dispersal.
It would appear that such a glut of information would be
unmanageable and in the end, self-defeating as the assault of information
becomes overwhelming. As a result, a follow-up criticism then points to the way
in which people manage their information, by filtering out that which they
disagree with or categorically reject. Instead of the gatekeepers’ purportedly
feeding information out in such a way in which people would be exposed to all
sides of an issue, the charge is that people are now locking themselves into
cocooned echo chambers where they only hear what they want to hear.
These may be valid criticisms. However, we must look at the
positive side as well. People from all over the nation – and the world, as well
– are able to interact through social media and become exposed to other’s ideas,
customs, and traditions. Regionalism disappears through such interactions and
dialog, and time zones get erased.
The contention and discord that is stirred up pales in
comparison to the fact that the democratic “conversation” on the commons has
never been so robust or all-encompassing. Everyone, from the young to the old,
can get in on the discussions. The topics are endless, whether memes, pithy
comments and tweets, or lengthy essays, while the emotions run the gamut from
the sad to the happy.
Practically every commercial, religious, government,
institutional, or social entity has a presence on the web tied into social
media. Although the cacophony is deafening and sometimes fatiguing (every now
and then someone announces they have to drop out of the wired-in Facebook
virtual world to recharge their batteries), the affective experience of being
“connected” is rich and satisfying, if not very addictive.
Cultural Marxists are sure to find fault with this latest
manifestation of so-called capitalist manipulation. No doubt they will claim
that virtual worlds are just a modern reiteration of the “alienation” from
one’s true being that stultifying assembly-line labor likewise produced in the
heyday of the Industrial Revolution.
But modernity has its own rewards, far different from the
bucolic community life of the past. I would argue that being fully engaged with
the world at large is hardly a form of alienation; rather, it is a giant step
forward for humankind, one presaged by every evolutionary development in communications
since the invention of the telegraph. Digital divides notwithstanding, we are
witnessing the full bloom of participatory democracy through digital virtual
worlds and social media.
