On first reading the term 'public sphere' in our reading and how this is changed dramatically by the internet, I couldn't help but think about a story that is repeatedly brought up by one of my professors. The name eludes me, but essentially a man comes across a magical ring that makes them invisible. They promptly kill the king, sleep with the queen, and cause general mayhem. This is what the internet provides for us; a way to become (essentially) anonymous so we can do all manner of dastardly things (also see The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory).
But in many cases we don't. Is it because of panoptic surveillance? Are we not really invisible? Are we ultimately the same when we establish our identity online?
It seems like we're not supposed to just be ourselves, we're supposed to be more than ourselves. Revolutionizing politics and smashing traditional media are all in a days work for the new virtual person. Well, except for the fact that the same people who avoided and ignored political debate before the internet are doing it just as loudly now, and in some cases traditional media doesn't need the help of anyone to destroy themselves.
It would be inaccurate to say that there have not been interesting political possibilities and influences on the media (like this), but currently for politics this seems to be the exception, not the rule. For media, there's plenty, including an online publication for professionals and academics interested purely in video games, just one example of the bright, shining deviations from traditional media. There are political debate forums online, and online campaigning has proven to be a hit, but the revolutionizing of democracy may not be quite there yet.
I found the idea for multiple "overlapping and interconnected public spheres" fascinating; in many ways it seems this has become the case through various forms of social media. I'm not sure what this means globally or politically, but it is a shift towards mixing more perspectives into a larger scale public sphere.
Reasoning through debate strengthens the public sphere. "Publicity that is staged for show or manipulation" greatly wounds the public sphere. To equate mass media to public relations would be quite a stretch, but to deny the bias of media organizations and the potential for manipulation inherent in the information media outlets choose to show or hide would be unwise. This isn't to say that your favorite news anchor is trying to brainwash you, but to at least accept the possibility that there are biases among individuals and groups. So, assume for a moment that the information with a 'spin' on it is debated to strengthen the public sphere. This sounds like spinning yarn into gold, and yet it feels to me like garbage in, garbage out. Or has our public debate been 'faked' since the inception of mass media and our public sphere been suffering ever since?
This, like several other assertions made by individuals in Boeder's article, seem to ultimately perceive only good or sinister effects on the public sphere. It isn't good or bad, but it sure isn't neutral. This seems to be the theme for the class.
With all of the commentary following online news articles, I don't think that public debate is being faked. But to your point about the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory it may not be all that effective. I've just spent an hour or so reading comments on a Wired Magazine article about vaccinations. It is hard to measure, but I would say that not a single person changed their position (many people posted multiple times). The GIF theory is alive and well--even within a demographic that most likely shares common ground in loving and caring for the welfare of children. No matter how cogent some people's arguments (pro or con), there are ten other haters that polarize the issue by posting "clever" snarky, and downright nasty comments. Perhaps the lurkers (heh heh like me) are more flexible because we aren't defending a specific position on the issue? And maybe that is how a face-to-face public sphere in the original sense may have worked? Those with strong opinions are most likely to speak out and defend their argument while others listen and evaluate. Regardless if any general consensus is met... hopefully a voice of reason will rise to the top. I just wonder (worry) how many people read the comments simply to reaffirm their own bias. All I could gather was a digital shouting match--people slamming each other as much or more than the media article in question. I've seen this same behavior on NBC's First Read and other political websites as well.
ReplyDeleteMaybe with overlapping and interconnected spheres there is an opportunity for greater exposure... eventually?
We used to have daily debates on to handle the hatemongers who spewed venom through comments on stories, particularly stories about minorities, homosexuals, female politicians in general, criminals of all sorts. One viewpoint was to require registration and real names -- in other words, remove the veil of anonymity. At the other side, we wondered whether we were in effect revealing something about our community by allowing the vitriolic comments and, perhaps, diffusing some explosion of anger. What do you think?
ReplyDelete