Traditional Media and Web 2.0 - Essay Example

Web 2.0 Research Paper Name: Institution: Mode of transmitting information, especially to the public, has taken various turns especially within this century. One of the most contributing factors to this transformation is the introduction of Web 2.0. The views and importance of the traditional media is undergoing serious transformation in order to ensure that the media remain a viable and most effective mode of passing information. Comparing the role of the media in nineties to recent media shows a great gap of difference. In most cases, the media is always considered the “fourth estate” in the sense that the media highly contributes in monitoring and ensuring that the government and political players do not abuse responsibilities and duties. However, the big question remains, ‘Does Web 2.0 promote democracy? Another issue arising from the adoption of Web 2.0 is whether the theories of the media being “fourth estate” used in defining traditional media can explain the role of Web 2.0. This research paper will argue that Web 2.0 has promoted democracy. The paper also aims at providing argumentative facts concerning relevance of the theories used in understanding traditional media to Web 2.0. Web 2.0 and democracy The media has been the chief means of communication between the politicians, the leaders, the government and the public. In the nineties, it was only through the media such as listening to radios, watching cinemas and TVs, that information was relayed from one point to another. During these times, the media had a full control of the information that they relayed. It was thus, a common practice to find that the media had the power to filter the information they wanted to be relayed to the public. In such circumstances, the media was also always a subject to criticism by the government or authorities concerning the information that they had to relay. It is thus a probable occurrence that the media would be subjected to sabotage concerning what information to release to the public. This, in such circumstances, is always a disadvantage to the public. It is a common practice for authorities to confuse democracy with public interest. At early stages when Web 2.0 had not taken form, most of the information that never reached the public was either because of a ban by the government or authorities. In such circumstances therefore, there was a high degree of violation of the rights to access of information. During such times, the government or authorities had control of the media and thus this was an obstacle to democracy. At this period, the true definition of democracy was never realised. However, the interpretation of what people missed that time is more revealed with the introduction of Web 2.0. During those periods that the media was the sole owner of information passage, a lot of information did not reach the public. However, the introduction of Web 2.0 gave a different dimension to how people viewed transmission of messages and information in general. It is thus a question of, how well did people use the media to enhance democracy. Of course, it is an arguable fact that traditional media promoted democracy. This is because the proper use of media really contributed to promoting democracy since the media availed information concerning the government and authorities. The democracy through the traditional media gain popularity when new media legislation gave the media the freedom to have control of what they aired. The interference was reduced and this has over the years acted as the chief campaigner for promoting democracy. Then the introduction of Web 2.0 has transformed the whole light of democracy. Instead of waiting to watch news at a specific time, information about everything, anything is available through the internet. Through sites such Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, MySpace and so on, people can view any information they want at anytime they see fit. Web 2.0 is a major transformation in promoting democracy. This is majorly because nowadays, people do not have to wait for news from a specific radio stations or a television channels to get information about an occurrence. A person just needs to be in a place where he/she can access the internet and the information is availed. Due to these possibilities, gone are the days when it would be difficult to review a full speech or past speech of a politician or a leader. An individual just needs to go to the internet and extract all the information that he/she requires. This indeed is a show of democracy. Through the traditional media, it was difficult to get a personal opinion or response to a politician’s stand, statement or argument. It would be almost impossible for a person to watch news in a TV channel then contacts the TV state to air his/her views concerning a certain issue. However, the introduction of Web 2.0 introduced a transformation. It is easier and more exciting that an individual can follow and commend on every activity of a Politician and get a response from the politician. An example of these is the American politics where even people from other areas in the world can follow Obama or any other leader. The leaders even give responses thereby acting as a one on one conversation. Surely, who would have thought in the nineties that somebody from Europe or Africa would post a question to an American aspirant or president and get a response? This is just how high Web 2.0 has escalated democracy. With current sites such as Twitter, or Facebook, an individual from any part of the world can give a personal opinion about any political issue with little interference. This is more than just ‘democracy’ in the traditional media. However, some issues come up with such freedom of expression as a sign of exercising democratic rights. This is because most people who experienced and were influenced by the traditional media in the former periods do have problems with the extent of democracy that comes with Web 2.0. An example about this is the Wikis. The secrets and information availed from such sites are vital to some leaders since they reveal their secret deals and operations. This can easily escalate to demonstrations, which are also democratic rights. Therefore, with Web 2.0, democracy has just begun to take its true form and meaning. People are able to make prompt choices concerning their leaders by following every activity of that leader or politician. This therefore results to making appropriate choices and thus people do not need to rely on the media to decide on what information they consider ‘safe’ for the public and which information they choose to filter. Although this is dangerous since some actions or comments can escalate to political unrests, still people get to know the facts about these individual leaders and it is upon them to convince people concerning their deeds and actions. Therefore, argumentatively, Web 2.0 promotes democracy to another unimaginable level. Web 2.0 & theories of traditional media In the past, there are theories of the media as the “fourth estate” that enabled provision of explanations of the role of traditional media. The validity of these theories to explaining Web 2.0 is argumentative. In order to draw arguments to the statement, it is important to understand the concept of the media as a “fourth estate”. The media is considered as “fourth estate” because it aids in monitoring the complete political process and thereby ensuring that politicians especially, do not abuse the process of democracy. In some places however, the phrase is used to refer to the media as a player of a crucial role in fortunes of politicians and issues they raise. In actual sense, the media can play a significant role in shaping the public opinion by the choice of words and scenes from current issues. An example can be how the media reported the war in Iraq. By choosing words such as relocation to mean actual ‘forceful transfer of people’, the public’s perception of what was actually going on was diverted. Therefore, the media could easily manipulate the people’s opinion. The media also has a great influence on politics. Most voters judge politicians based on what is reported in the news. Change in public view results to changes in voting polls. The roles of the media as “fourth estate” are based on Moral Panic theory, social responsibility theory, and Critical theory among others. However, the application of these theories to Web 2.0 is debatable. First, moral panic theory is an important concept of the media. The media had a way of controlling panics that would result due to political unrests, racial unrests and so on. This is because the media had the power to filter information for public interest. However, with Web 2.0, everything is available. Riots in Egypt for example, were available on YouTube even before the media started live coverage. Everything as it occurred was available. It was through watching what was happening in Cairo that Egyptians from other towns saw the need to riot. The arrangements of such gatherings were made possible through social media such as Facebook, Twitter and MySpace. If media would have been the only available source of communication, due to fear of panic, media could have controlled what was availed. Therefore, the media could control the information relay due to fear of continued panic. This would be morally correct. However, such scenarios cannot be controlled in Web 2.0. Therefore, Web 2.0 cannot easily control and limit information relay to public due to fear of panic. The second theory that majorly applies to the media is the critical theory. According to Marxists, critical theory applies in explanation of the role of the media in maintaining a certain dominant ideology. The media has a way of influencing interpretation of texts and information. The media can easily twist the information available in the media in order to maintain a given dominant ideology. The reasons for maintaining certain ideologies might be various and depend on the reception analysis done by the media concerning the audience of the information. Critical theory becomes a little bit tricky in Web 2.0. Maintaining certain dominant ideologies is not easy to control in Web 2.0. This is majorly because the perception of people and ideologies are vast. Various opinions arise concerning the same issue and therefore, controlling how people perceive certain things become difficult. However, the critical theory is also applicable in Web 2.0 to some extent. This is especially based on scenarios about the perception of a person within a public office or a politician. Having daily information concerning a certain politician for example can aid in maintaining an ideology. Dirty politics by other politicians concerning their rivals would be reduced since people can refer to what such individuals said earlier. Perhaps, the most confusing and tricky theory to Web 2.0 is the social responsibility theory or model. Social responsibility theory is concerned with the state’s role in trying to make sure that the media performs its duty and at the same time maintain the independence of journalists and the freedom of speech that people are entitled to. This theory indicates that the media has an obligation to the society and therefore the information passed in the media should be truthful, objective, relevant and fair and that the media should be self-regulated and free. Social responsibility therefore requires that the media follow various available professional conducts and codes of ethics. Nevertheless, whether such theory can apply to Web 2.0 is debatable. Control of what goes in the Internet is tricky. In addition, some people can follow codes of ethics and professional conducts; it is highly unlikely that such misconducts be controlled before they happen. Therefore, Web 2.0 introduces a conflict between the perception of freedom of expression and misconduct. Otherwise, ensuring that everything in the social media follows codes of conduct is hectic. Therefore, this theory is only applicable to some extent. From the above theories, difference between Web 2.0 and the traditional media is highly evident. While the traditional media provided fewer options of TV channels, radio stations and Cinemas, Web 2.0 presents a variety of options. Control of such vast options becomes difficult. The fact that anybody can avail anything in the internet is crucial. Availability of several of millions of viewers every moment indicates that any information passed on the net can have several views within a short time. This is critical since control of information becomes difficult. Breaking new such as riots, calamities and so on reach millions of viewers without regulation or discretion. Considerations on the ethical perspectives of what is available in the internet are not easy. Materials such as pornography are easily available in the internet and children can easily access them. This therefore gives the complexities of Web 2.0. However, in terms of democracy, Web 2.0 is upfront in promoting democracy. It gives people a voice of recognition and acts actively in monitoring governments, leaders and authorities and hence can be considered as a “fourth estate” though the theories that explain this role vary compared to those of the traditional media. References: MacLeod, Christine, 2007, Heroes of Invention: Technology, Liberalism and British identity, 1740-1914, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ibrahimi, Leonard, 2007, ‘The watchdog role of the media- media as the fourth estate’, retrieved September 8, 2012 from http://rrezja.blogspot.com/2007/01/watchdog-role-of-media.html Cridland, James, ‘Traditional Media and Web 2.0’ James Cridland’s blog retrieved September 8, 2012 from http://james.cridland.net/blog/traditional-media-and-web-20 Don, Tapscott, Anthony, Williams, 2008, Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes Everything, New York: Portfolio. Read More