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. Digital Democracy
4. The Real Potential of New Media
5. The Microsoft Problem and Its Consequences
6. Communication and the Myth of New Media
7. New Media: Hype and Corporate Centralization
8. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper examines the democratic potential of new media, questioning the prevailing utopian narrative that rapid communication inherently empowers citizens or fosters political equality. It argues that new media platforms often replicate existing power structures, centralization, and elite control, suggesting that the quality of political discourse—rather than the quantity of information—remains the true metric for a healthy democracy.
- The role of corporate monopolies in shaping digital information environments.
- Critique of "digital democracy" and the impact of information overload.
- The relationship between political participation and social media platforms.
- Cultural imperialism and western agendas in global communications.
- Distinction between "information" and "communication" in political settings.
Excerpt from the Book
The Real Potential of New Media
There is no gainsaying the fact that, structural problems are revealed in any analysis of the different models and projects of “e-democracy.” It is a privatization of debate, where the compromises of the civic group are opened to the narcissistic demands of people safe behind their keyboards and other forms of anonymity. There is a certain short circuit that “direct democracy” produces since the virtues of real civic activism are non-existent when each actor is anonymous or, worse, using false identification. The point is that a land of virtual citizens cannot be a democracy (Gurevich, 2009: 177-178).
New media cannot replace classical institutions such as the party, but they can upgrade accessibility. The functions of political parties was to develop and protect the collective interest, however narrow. They were formed to carry through certain urgent political tasks that people could not solve alone. Currently, parties as real, holistic institutions largely lost such functions and thus the interest of the voters was re-directed to television, then the web, and now, the miniature web, which is what portable, new media really is.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Defines new media and sets the stage for a critical argument against the assumption that digital communication is inherently democratizing.
Some Essential Ideas: Explores literature regarding cultural imperialism and the role of corporate interests in shaping global media infrastructures.
Digital Democracy: Discusses the paradoxes of online democracy, emphasizing how it may lead to information overload rather than improved political debate.
The Real Potential of New Media: Analyzes how new media affects political parties and the challenges of identity and anonymity in digital discourse.
The Microsoft Problem and Its Consequences: Examines the impact of corporate software monopolies on the centralization of web standards and information flow.
Communication and the Myth of New Media: Compares different models of communication, highlighting the difficulty of achieving true scholarship in an era of superficial digital facts.
New Media: Hype and Corporate Centralization: Critiques the belief that information technology alone can spark social revolutions, pointing to the dominance of mainstream press sources online.
Conclusion: Summarizes the need to focus on what is being communicated rather than just the technical medium, reinforcing a skeptical view of utopian digital claims.
Keywords
New Media, Digital Democracy, Information Overload, Cultural Imperialism, Political Participation, Corporate Centralization, Internet, Public Sphere, Communication, Technology, Modernity, Social Media, Journalism, Media Oligarchy, Political Advocacy.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core argument of this work regarding new media?
The work argues that new media is not an inherently democratic or revolutionary force. It suggests that digital platforms are often as centralized and oligarchic as traditional media, and that quality of discourse matters more than technical connectivity.
What are the primary themes discussed in the text?
The main themes include the corporate control of digital infrastructures, the impact of information overload on critical thinking, the preservation of cultural integrity against imperialism, and the limitations of electronic voting and online participation.
What is the primary research objective?
The objective is to provide a critical, skeptical analysis of the "utopian" claims surrounding new media, demonstrating that it often reinforces existing power imbalances rather than challenging them.
Which research methods are employed?
The author conducts a literature-based review, engaging with political theory, communications studies, and historical analyses of media regimes to build a case against the myth of digital democracy.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The body covers corporate monopolies (Microsoft), the failure of digital democracy to improve political debate, the influence of US-based western agendas, and the distinction between information transmission and genuine communication.
How would you characterize the primary keywords?
The keywords center on the intersection of technology, power, and political philosophy, emphasizing themes like media oligarchies and the skepticism of digital progress.
How does the author define the "Microsoft Problem"?
The "Microsoft Problem" refers to the way corporate monopolies use predatory market practices and standardized software to lock users into proprietary systems, which in turn influences the broader political and information environment.
Why does the author argue that "new media" is dangerous in the developing world?
The author posits that new media is often the property of westernized, urban elites in these regions, serving as a tool for their own interests rather than a genuine representative mechanism for the broader population.
- Citation du texte
- Felix Ale (Auteur), 2014, New Media and a democratic society, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/286499
