New Media refers to cell phones with the power of computers ten years ago, high speed internet available anywhere without requiring a desktop computer, and rapid communications which can transfer not just voice files, but data of all sorts. Since the so called Arab Spring(s) starting in 2011-2012, it has been argued famously that these “revolutions” were made possible by the rapidity of communication. In other words, that new media made the transfer of ideas from one place to another easier and instantaneous. Ideas mean here video, audio, data or files containing anything and everything. However, the data suggest that this is not the case. Even if it were the case, that this new media is so class based (at least in the developing world) that it can be as dangerous as it is beneficial.
Table of Contents
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Some Essential Ideas
- 3. Gilboa (2002)
- Digital Democracy
Objectives and Key Themes
This paper aims to critically examine the impact of new media on democratic societies, challenging the common notion that it inherently fosters greater freedom and participation. It analyzes the relationship between new media and political processes, considering both its potential benefits and significant limitations.
- The definition and evolution of "new media."
- The influence of corporate interests and cultural imperialism on the development and dissemination of new media.
- The relationship between new media and democratic participation, including both increased access and potential for manipulation.
- The impact of new media on the quality of political discourse and debate.
- The limitations of technological solutions to democratic challenges.
Chapter Summaries
1. Introduction: This introductory chapter defines "new media," referencing Flew's (2002) concept of on-demand data access, user commentary, and the formation of virtual communities. It contrasts the initial optimistic views of new media's democratizing potential with a more critical perspective, highlighting the concerns about centralization and corporate influence. Chomsky's (2011) earlier observation on decentralized communication is introduced, setting the stage for the argument that the quality, not the quantity, of information is crucial for a just society. The chapter concludes by stating the paper's central argument: there's no inherent link between any medium and political freedom, emphasizing the importance of quality over quantity.
2. Some Essential Ideas: This chapter explores critical perspectives on new media's impact, highlighting the arguments against its utopian potential. It discusses Chadha and Kavoori's (2000) work on Asian countries' efforts to regulate the internet to protect their cultures from Western influence. The chapter also examines Hume's (2004) argument about the US government's role in promoting the adoption of Western new media systems abroad, characterizing this as an act of cultural imperialism. Lamay's (2007) view, connecting new media development to American foreign policy objectives, is then presented, further emphasizing the corporate and ideological biases embedded within these systems. The chapter concludes by challenging the universalist claims of corporations regarding their contributions to global revolution.
3. Gilboa (2002): This chapter focuses on Gilboa's (2002) argument that rapid, global communication is neutral in relation to democracy in quantitative terms. It contrasts Gilboa's pre-"Arab Spring" perspective with the subsequent media-driven "revolutions," suggesting that powerful entities like Microsoft and Apple may play a more significant role than the medium itself in shaping political outcomes. This section lays the groundwork for the discussion of the actual influence of these corporations on the democratic process through the manipulation of information and the propagation of biased narratives.
Digital Democracy: This chapter analyzes the concept of direct online democracy, contrasting its portrayal as a reward for modernization with its potential threats. It addresses the issues of information overload leading to shallow rhetoric and the lack of incentive for meaningful debate. The chapter also discusses the implications of "e-democracy" for traditional political institutions, highlighting the potential for the degradation of political discourse into easily manipulated slogans and imagery. It emphasizes the paradoxical situation of increased political participation accompanied by a decrease in political responsibility. Finally, it discusses the potential for electronic voting to exacerbate existing crises within democratic societies, concluding with the inherent limitations of new media in facilitating genuine democratic engagement.
Keywords
New media, democracy, digital democracy, cultural imperialism, corporate influence, political participation, information overload, quality of discourse, political responsibility, e-democracy, mass society.
Frequently Asked Questions: A Critical Examination of New Media and Democracy
What is the main argument of this paper?
The paper argues that there is no inherent link between new media and political freedom. It challenges the utopian view that new media automatically fosters greater democracy, highlighting instead the significant limitations and potential for manipulation. The focus is on the quality, not the quantity, of information.
What are the key themes explored in the paper?
The paper explores the definition and evolution of "new media," the influence of corporate interests and cultural imperialism, the relationship between new media and democratic participation (both increased access and manipulation), the impact on the quality of political discourse, and the limitations of technological solutions to democratic challenges.
How does the paper define "new media"?
The paper references Flew (2002) in defining new media, highlighting features like on-demand data access, user commentary, and the formation of virtual communities.
What is the paper's stance on the democratizing potential of new media?
The paper takes a critical stance, acknowledging the potential benefits of increased access but emphasizing the risks of manipulation, corporate control, and the degradation of political discourse. It rejects the notion of an inherent link between new media and greater democratic freedom.
What role do corporate interests play in the paper's analysis?
The paper highlights the significant influence of corporate interests and cultural imperialism on the development and dissemination of new media, arguing that these factors shape the information landscape and can undermine genuine democratic participation.
How does the paper address the concept of "digital democracy"?
The paper critically examines direct online democracy, highlighting issues like information overload leading to shallow rhetoric, lack of incentive for meaningful debate, and the potential for manipulation through easily digested slogans and imagery. It emphasizes the paradox of increased participation alongside decreased political responsibility.
Which scholars and their works are referenced in the paper?
The paper references works by Flew (2002), Chomsky (2011), Chadha and Kavoori (2000), Hume (2004), Lamay (2007), and Gilboa (2002), among others. These references support the arguments presented throughout the paper.
What are the key limitations of new media discussed in the paper?
The paper discusses limitations such as information overload leading to shallow discourse, the potential for manipulation by powerful entities, the lack of incentive for meaningful debate, and the exacerbation of existing crises within democratic societies. It ultimately argues that new media, in itself, cannot solve democratic challenges.
What are the chapter summaries included in the preview?
The preview provides summaries of each chapter, outlining the main arguments and themes discussed in each section, including introductions to key concepts and perspectives from various scholars.
What are the keywords associated with the paper?
Keywords include: New media, democracy, digital democracy, cultural imperialism, corporate influence, political participation, information overload, quality of discourse, political responsibility, e-democracy, and mass society.
- Quote paper
- Felix Ale (Author), 2014, New Media and a democratic society, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/286499
