Democratic Medium of Information - Assignment Example

Running Head: Internet: Democratic Medium of Information Internet: Democratic Medium of Information [Institute’s Internet: Democratic Medium of Information Introduction When in the June 2009, thousands of Iranians took the streets to protests against the rigging in Iranian elections and the oppressive Iranian regime, much of the Western Media credited social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter for being the stimulus and source for organising these protests (Briggs, 2009, p. 77). The concept that internet is inherently democratic and that it can assist in eradicating totalitarian and authoritarian regimes from the world is gaining more and more popularity in the Western World. There are no doubts about the fact that when the history of the 20th and 21st century will be written, internet would be labelled as the major stimulus that shaped this era and many of the developments that have been witnessed by these generations (Gaur, 2006, p. 57). Nevertheless, there is a still a serious debate regarding the democratic or undemocratic nature of the internet and its ability to assist or hinder the democracies in the world. Discussion Over the past few years, citizens from various developed countries in the world have become extremely cynical and sceptical of their government, traditional forms of media and governmental institutions for any information. Therefore, these people usually extend greater trust and credibility over the internet, which they are increasingly using to fulfil their information needs. Furthermore, many political parties and politicians, realising the power of internet are using the internet to their advantage (Bennett & Entman, 2000, p. 214). The rise of several populist parties in Europe, some of which now enjoy considerable representation within the parliaments of Denmark, Hungary, Austria, Belgium, Sweden, Netherlands, Spain, Latvia, Slovakia, Greece and others, have been able to transform their parities because of their extensive reliance over social media (Salter, 2003, p. 118). Since the internet has the ability to reach billions of people all over the world and absorb their opinions, viewpoints and ideas, the general opinion amongst the public is that internet is a populist and democratic tool. From the surface, it might appear that internet is a highly democratic medium, as it is so diverse, huge, far reaching and dynamics that nobody can control it (Gaur, 2006, p. 57). However, a closer examination makes it apparent that the internet has deeply embedded structural inequalities. For example, consider the fact that the most developed countries in the world, which account for only 16 percent of the world’s population, control 97 percent of all internet hosts (Bennett, 2007, p. 259). Interestingly enough, the 100 least developed countries in the world have only 5 percent of the internet hosts of Iceland. Nevertheless, proponents of internet being a democratic medium argue that almost 60 percent of the global population has access to the internet but the fact that one sixth of this population or 10 percent resides within the United States (Gimmler, 2001, p. 22). Nevertheless, also important here is to note the fact that democracy is not only the name of gathering opinions from the general public and then following the course of action determined by the majority of that population but it also includes the aspect of transparency. In fact, transparency is fundamental for any democracy to survive and in the absence of transparency; a democracy loses its essence (Thornton, 2001, p. 127). In other words, democracy requires verification of the information so that it could be classified as “true” or “false”. It also needs transparency so that even the most contrasting opinions could come under lime light. Furthermore, true democracy also ensures that private and confidential information remains private so that the debate on issues remains a debate on issues and not on petty personal arguments (Dahlberg & Siapera, 2007, p. 46). The problem with internet is that it is essentially an opaque medium and does not allow for transparency. The information circulating on the internet, sometimes not only in the short term but also in the long term, can be easily manipulated and tweaked by powerful corporations or governmental agencies and for that matter for fact, even by a few individuals. For every piece of information, for every theory, for every fact, there is an opposite piece floating on the internet in most cases (Gimmler, 2001, p. 22). Therefore, the internet is spreading information and misinformation at the same pace and at the same time. More importantly, since internet and technology has created an era where people seek instant solutions, they also seek instant solution. The same translates into the fact that most people do not check the facts or truth behind the information, but accept it or reject it based on their biases, assumptions and prejudices (Salter, 2003, p. 118). Some argue that since it was the internet which played an instrumental role of a catalyst in supporting and stimulating the Arab Spring and Middle Eastern revolution, internet is not only a democratic medium but it also supports and nurtures democracy. Nevertheless, the fact is that this revolution became possible because internet provided anonymity to the protestors, organisers and bloggers. However, when it comes to the real transfer of information amongst people, anonymity prevents people from assuming responsibility of their viewpoints and opinions. More importantly, anonymity prevents the public from exploring and examining the secret interests, if any, which control information (Bennett & Entman, 2000, p. 214). Governments and large corporations have manipulated information in the past. Indian, Pakistani, North Korean, Chinese, Venezuelan, Cuban and several other governments in the world have actively used the internet to censor and manipulate the information available to their citizens (Baber, 2002, p. 290). In fact, China, now for several years, has been blocking any content which is against the Chinese regime, without hurting the economic progress of the nation. The same is true in the case of India as well, which claims to be the largest democracy in the world (Dahlberg & Siapera, 2007, p. 46). Moreover, in many of these countries, the government has hired an entire army of content writers and bloggers whose job description is to write pro-government and pro-state material on the internet and work towards discrediting the people who disagree. Hugo Chavez, the former Venezuelan President is also on Twitter because he believes that the internet can be used as an excellent propaganda tool (Bennett, 2007, p. 259). It has been an observation that surveys and polls conducted over the internet lack reliability as well as representative validity because of absence of concrete sampling methods. Most of the samples are selected through a convenience, snowball or judgment sampling method, which raises seriously doubts over the conclusions and results from these samples. Furthermore, in many cases, there is only a small minority of the population who takes an active interest in a topic and engages in discussions about the same (Ferdinand, 2000, p. 75; Gimmler, 2001, p. 22). Similar to other forms of mass media, internet also depends greatly on provoking strong emotional responses from its users as well as exploiting the myths, clichés and prejudices of the public. Therefore, internet does not provide an ideal place for critical discussions and debate but it is an ideal place to exploit and propagate populist ideas and movements (Baber, 2002, p. 290). Consider the example of the Occupy Wall Street Movement and gained momentum that this movement gained through the internet and digital platforms. Essentially, Occupy Wall Street was an unrealistic and illogical movement, with absurd and ill-defined aims, but the recessionary environment during the late 2000s ensured that the rejection and hatred of capitalism, corporations and Wall Street become conventional (Briggs, 2009, p. 77). There are no doubts about the fact that, essentially, democracy aims to protect the fundamental human rights of the people and protect the minorities against the “tyranny of the majority” (Hoggart, 2004, p. 82). However, democracy can never achieve the aim of protection of fundamental rights of all human beings in the absence of a complex set of rules and procedures, also known as Constitution. The constitution is the manifestation of universal suffrage, separation of powers between State and religion. The constitution also agrees habeas corpus (Dahlberg & Siapera, 2007, p. 46). Democracy is the collective essence of all of these points and any law, procedure or process, which is against these values, puts a detrimental wound on democracy itself. This is the reason why there are rules within a democracy so that the democracy never loses its essence and that at any stage; the majority is able to deprive any group of people of their fundamental rights (Ferdinand, 2000, p. 75; Gimmler, 2001, p. 22). However, the problem in accepting internet as a democratic form of information source is that the internet has no rules and even if there are rules, those rules are never certain, value based, transparent or binding. Towards the end of the day, a true democratic system requires the full and direct commitment of the people and not an illusion of participation, where people seated in their homes or workplace could click on the mouse pad, whenever they deem feasible (Bennett & Entman, 2000, p. 214). As argued by Hindman (2008) that it is much easier to speak on the internet, but it is extremely troublesome to be heard. After analysing 3 million different web pages related to American politics, the author concludes that communities of web pages on each political issue or topic appears to be dominated by a small segment of highly successful and most visited webpages. Therefore, the scale of online concentration is high enough beyond the wildest expectations of people (p. 25). For example, in case of blogs, the top read blogs within the United States have now emerged as the major source of political information, but they are less than a dozen in number (Salter, 2003, p. 118). More importantly, there are thousands of bloggers who post information and their views on the internet but only a small portion of highly educated and qualified white males dominate the blogging arena. More importantly, these are the same kind of people who provide information through offline sources. Therefore, while the United States celebrated the sheer volume of blogs and different opinions, it needs to realise the fact that many of the voices in this case are left out (Thornton, 2001, p. 127). Conclusion It is important here to note is that the paper does not deny the importance of internet, its future dominance and effectiveness, but it merely argues that internet does not fit the criteria of a “democratic medium of information”. There are many positive sides to internet, but they do not have the ability to cut out the darker side of the internet (Bennett & Entman, 2000, p. 214). Furthermore, the western world has longed lived in the illusion that internet is democratic in nature and it can assist the west in toppling the authoritative and totalitarian governments, whereas, the evidence suggests to the contrary (Baber, 2002, p. 290). Many dictators and oppressive regimes are now using the internet to extend their power. Interestingly enough, some experts also argue that internet is not democratic in nature because it engages people into a whole new world of information, engagement and activities that their concern for political issues decreases, thus, allowing the current regimes to continue their governments and oppression (Dahlberg & Siapera, 2007, p. 46). Lastly, it is important here to reinforce the idea that democracy is not merely the name of granting freedoms and allowing people to express their opinions, but at the same time, it is also the name of accepting responsibilities and hearing all the people. Internet, with its anonymous structure and instant processes does not ensure the same. It does not grant freedom, but at several occasions, it takes the freedom to privacy of many people (Ferdinand, 2000, p. 75). References Baber, Z. 2002. Engendering or endangering democracy? The Internet, civil society and the public sphere. Asian Journal of Social Science, Volume 30(2), pp. 287-303. Bennett, W. L. 2007. News: The politics of illusion, New York: Pearson Longman. Bennett, W. L., & Entman, R. M. 2000. Mediated politics: Communication in the future of democracy. Cambridge University Press. Briggs, A. 2009. A social history of the media: From Gutenberg to the Internet. Cambridge: Polity. Dahlberg, L., & Siapera, E. 2007. Radical democracy and the Internet: interrogating theory and practice. Palgrave Macmillan. Ferdinand, P. 2000. The Internet, democracy and democratization. Democratization, Volume 7(1), pp. 1-17. Gaur, S. 2006. Dimensions of mass media and communication, Jaipur: Book Enclave. Gimmler, A. 2001. Deliberative democracy, the public sphere and the internet. Philosophy & Social Criticism, Volume 27(4), pp. 21-39. Hindman, M. 2008. The myth of digital democracy. Princeton University Press. (Hindman, 2008, p. 95) Hoggart, R. (2004) Mass media in a mass society: myth and reality, London: Continuum. Salter, L. 2003. Democracy, new social movements, and the Internet. Cyberactivism: Online activism in theory and practice, pp. 117-144. Thornton, A. L. 2001. Does the Internet create democracy? African Journalism Studies, Volume 22(2), pp. 126-147. Read More