Democracy and the Internet
As part of the reading for my Political Science class, I came across two viewpoints concerning the role/effect of the Internet on democratic self-government that I thought would be interesting material for our discussion.
View 1:
"As a result of the distorted view created by the economics of a for-profit media system (as propogated by the Internet), people hold irrational opinions and are therefore incapable of self-government. By divorcing itself from physical reality (by immersing iteslf in the virtual world of the Internet) and relying on distorted media images, society may be losing the ability to construct an accurate picture of the world, which trivializes any effort by its members at meaningful self-government. Members of modern democratic society may be unable to create an accurate picture of reality in their minds because the picture itself has become incomprehensible (due to the glut of contradictory and questionable information provided by the Internet.)"
View 2:
"Internet spaces offer great democratic potential for citizens to come together in the deliberative process to build communities and self-govern. Citizens should find it easier to stay informed in order to make high-quality decisions that democratic self-government requires. Virtual spaces perform an important function by allowing opinions to circulate in society."
This kind of feeds into a question posed by my professor at the end of our first class--is the Internet, on the whole, a good thing for society; or do the costs outweigh any possible benefits?
Any thoughts?
posted by ze roberto @ 1/18/2005 08:30:00 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Fascinating discussion... I'd say that the phenomenon of "micro publishing" -- which this blog itself is an example of -- has fundamentally changed the ways in which the *informed* (or semi-informed) electorate goes about getting its news and information. That is to say, those with Internet familiarity tend to get their information increasingly from the Internet, as those that don't tend to continue using traditional media sources: television news, AM radio, newspapers, magazines. Consider the Howard Dean phenomenon through MeetUp.org, or the MoveOn.org phenomenon; the Internet has transformed news-slash-partisanship into an organizing and fundraising tool in a way that "mass media" never has or could before. The Internet transforms news into instant spin, and op-ed into op-action.
I tend to agree more with the second view--that the Internet offers opportunities to organize, get involved, and get informed--making for a more active, better informed, and therefore more productive democratic citizenry. I think you just have to be a little more aware that not everything you read on the Internet is fact and be ready to do a little bit of investigating to separate fact from opinion. However, a little bit of healthy skepticism is good regardless of where you get your news (from TV, the radio, the Internet, your neighbor Jimbo...)
The first view presented doesn't give much credit to the individual, assuming that we're all mindless sheep who can't think for themselves. I agree that the Internet is not all good, and that there are some real problems/dangers it creates. But, on the whole, I can't see how such a broad-ranging, community-building, information-sharing communication tool can be bad for society when it represents so much potential for positive interactions, bridge-building, etc.
Hi. I waited over 12 hours before I started providing my opinion. So unlike me! Anyway, I think the first argument is flawed because without the Internet, we would still have a "for-profit media system", so it sounds more like View 1 has a problem with any type of informative medium, not just the Internet. I can only speak for myself, but as a result of the content on the web, I am a better educated, more fully informed voter. Most of the information I am exposed to would be available to me via print or television, but I have greater access to more information and opinions. How can that be bad? I wonder how we could be capable of "self-government" without information.
My position concerning the internet is very simple: It's a great benefit to soceity because it allows an uncensored, unregulated (at least at the present time)forum in which individuals may share opinions and ideas that may be seen as unsavory for more mainstream media outlets. That's enough for me to feel the internet has a real benefit to democracy and cultural evolution.
I think one of the best things about the Internet is Google News. The only 'editorial bias' it seems to have is subject to the volume of articles on any particular news story. Reading about an issue from the vantage of several news sources clearly broadens one's understanding of the topic. Doing so often exposes bias.
It would be difficult to convince me that Internet media distribution is a bad thing or that it will incapacitate American Democracy, but I do think the author of 'View 1' exposes a tender spot in our political system - the author rightly fears an uninformed electorate.
Whether you might choose as an example (i) obnoxious and unfunded California-style Ballot Referendums, or (ii) when obnoxious Contract-With-America-style freshmen legislators capriciously slash taxes, irresponsibility is irresponsibility and you ask for a whole heap of it when a 'movement' persuades the non-readers to RISE UP! and make their difference. For now, it seems that the popular antidote is louder shouting from the other side… which will suffice until everyone is hoarse.
Hyper-biased political action groups that distribute false information are harmful, whether you agree with them or not. As easily as one can find news, they can also find the support network for *any* point of view ranging from cockamamie to dangerous ideology. The Internet unmistakably supports this, but it’s not the end of the world.
My crystal ball tells me that Internet media will do more to help J. Public become a better informed voter than the harm it will advance by amplifying and connecting to each other the irrational, dishonest, malicious, and idiotic. Our Republic will ebb and flow in the meantime, while more people move from the couch to the keyboard.
I'm glad you mentioned Google News, Randy, because I think they use a fantastic method for compiling information from a variety of sources. There is no editorial high-handedness, it's all based on logarithms (if you believe their rhetoric, and I do.) I guess someone still has to decide what stories will be featured, but until a better model comes along I'll continue to keep it as my home page.
I also agree that the Internet does provide a fast and easy way for extremists to organize and get their message out. But, as someone who believe strongly in civil liberty, I would defend their rights to do so. If there were no Internet, these folks would still be out there, and although it would require more effort to reach as many people, they would still be voicing their opinions. Which brings me to what I believe is the Internet's greatest benefit--the ability to make ones' voice heard, regardless of political/economic status. If this makes politicians more sensitive to the opinions/thoughts of the citizenry, I can't see how that would have any effect other than to make for a stronger and more representative government.
Of course, there's also the issue of access, and the so-called Digital Divide; and the even stickier issue of regulated content and censorship. Who has the right/jurisdiction to regulate the Internet? Is it even possible? I guess controlling access is one way to do it (as the Chinese do with "The Great 'Fire'Wall of China") but if you were listening to All Things Considered this evening, you might have heard how Chinese dissidents are still able to get around these restrictions. As Ian Malcolm says in "Jurassic Park," "life will find a way" and so ideas will find their way on the Internet--despite and in spite of attempts to control and/or regulate them.
The one aspect not discussed by either view is the more reliable/verifiable ability to communicate through email - either to identified users or to those of like mind through mass email. With email the political distortions of the sender are often already known by the receiver (yes, that means you Pete). Of course you still have knuckle-heads mucking things up:
College probes mass e-mailing
Message condemns 'Dems and liberals'; UMW officials unsure if system was hacked
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031780324344&path=%21news&s=1045855934842
Post a Comment
<< Home