Hello! You’ve arrived at the construction site of Renee Verdier’s senior thesis:The Rise of Digital and New Media and its Implications for Democratic Processes. Here is a brief summary of my research.
I am writing my thesis on the effects of digital and “new” media on freedom of information – that is, freedom to express one’s opinions or ideas within a society as well as the accessibility of government-held information – and their relation to the liberal-democratic view of the role of the media in a democracy.
The media has historically been viewed as a vehicle for the realization of individual rights to freedom of expression and speech, and as a forum for the dissemination of information and the expression of a plurality of views. The media make the government and citizens aware of public opinion and facilitate a public sphere for open debate. This “marketplace of ideas,” when it functions freely, acts as a public watchdog capable of unveiling corrupt activities, a consumer representative that reflects popular opinion, and a locus of information that promotes the free trade of ideas and news (Curran).
The marriage of the traditional forms of the media (newspapers, television, etc.) with digital computers ushered in the age of the “new media”; the rise of the internet and global communications technology allowed for a huge surge in the speed, range, and volume of communication and provided new opportunities for interactive communication (W. Russel Neuman cited in Croteu and Hoynes 164). But what does this transformation mean for the role of the media in a democratic environment? Some, such as Douglass Kellner and James Bohman, argue that new media, and particularly the Internet, provide the potential for a democratic postmodern public sphere in which citizens can participate in well informed, non-hierarchical debate about their society and public policy; in short, they can enable an electronic democracy in which citizens may assemble and discourse in a virtual Athens (Kellner 15). Others, like the scholar Cass Sunstein, predict mixed consequences. They see these new technologies – especially the Internet – as promoting a freedom to choose information sources that both screen in and screen out ideas (Sunstein xi). Traditional media expose people to competing perspectives and enhance public knowledge, which are fundamental aspects of democracy; by contrast, the new media harbor “echo chambers” in which like-minded people speak or listen mainly to one another (undermining the spirit of compromise and wonder necessary for political cooperation (Sunstein xii). Other scholars, such as Ed Herman and Robert McChesney, argue that new media technologies have given governments and global corporations new opportunities for transferring capital and collecting information on individuals’ preferences, enabling them to exert a hitherto unseen influence (Herman and McChesney 111). Still others highlight the critical, libratory element of new media, maintaining that interactive communications create new avenues for participation in democratic discourse, liberalizing the media and encouraging individuals to engage in the public sphere (Shapiro cited in Croteau and Hoynes 322).
My goal in writing this thesis is to review these arguments, test them against each other, and further explore the impacts of new media through the examination of current communications phenomena. One such subject of interest is the rise of participatory media structures such as the blogosphere and Wikipedia, whose open-source format makes political, among other forms of expression, easier to realize. Another is the development of radical free information movements on the Internet that promote freer access to information concealed by state or corporate entities. The argument that I expect to present is that the new communications technology has spurred a transition from a singular, unidirectional media – from one-to-many media, such as television, and one-to-one media, such as the telephone – to bidirectional media in which many can communicate with many, even simultaneously. The former is significant because it secularized information; the latter is significant because it tends to democratize it. I will study new media to determine whether or not they truly succeed in enhancing the media’s democratic functions. To what extent do the deliberative opportunities of Wikipedia result in the decentralization of intellectual authority? Is the blogosphere the leader of a vast emergence of grassroots and collective media groups, toppling the current regime of top-down media organizations? Do free information institutions such as Wikileaks have the potential to enhance the transparency of state and corporate operations, or even undermine corruption therein? These are the questions that have been guiding my research in my thesis tutorial this semester. Based on what I have already found I expect to argue that despite the diversity and complexity of its natures and effects, at least some new media – especially the fruits of Web 2.0, or the trend in digital technology that redefined the Internet as a platform that aims to facilitate creativity, collaboration, and sharing among users (O’Reilly) – contains a libratory element that may even provide solutions to some of the post-Marxist and liberal-democratic criticisms of the media. Web 2.0 empowered the people with the ability to take the production of new media into their own hands, and the ensuing participatory media may encourage further social and political participation. New opportunities for grassroots media can weaken media conglomerates and their influence on news content. And the ease of spreading information widely and anonymously can undermine state and corporate attempts to exercise control of the media and beyond.
I’ve created this website to document the process behind my research, both for my own organizational benefit as well as to create a forum for discussion between myself and readers, readers and readers, &c. Your thoughts, feedback, criticism, and questions are all welcome; they are the manifestation of the content of my argument. ‘Cause I can’t write a thesis on web 2.0 without bringing a little web 2.0 into the mix, right? Mmm meta…
