Digitaldemocracyandnewmedia
Download
Report
Transcript Digitaldemocracyandnewmedia
Digital
Democracy,Communication
Rights and New Media
Review of Social Problems of New Media
Rhetoric and Reality on the Internet
Ideology of the Internet
The Right to Communication
Ideology of the Internet ( Birdsall et
al)
Rise of neo liberal thinking about the new
economy
Celebrate Joseph Schumpeter
Create Industry Councils to deliberate on
future of Internet
Decline to regulate the Internet
Link up Schools as sole sop to universality
Fail to provide for Canadian content on
education Internet websites
The Right to Communicate
Birdsall et al refrain from a full articulation.
Why? Citizens should be involved in
defining it
Yet 1991 Canadian Act in Broadcasting did
not involve Citizens….1996 US Act
involved citizens, but the civic agenda lost
Communication Rights
1. Right to inform and be informed
2. Right of active participation in
communication process
3. Right of equitable access to
communication resources and
information
4. Right to privacy: individual and collective
source: Birdsall et al in courseware.
Constitutional Framework
Stipulates “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and
expression, including freedom of speech and the press
and other media
In legal interpretation, both a shield and a sword (
unstable history) since may be subject to ‘reasonable
limits’
Need more affirmation of a Right to Communicate
A charter amendment
A new judicial discourse
A public internet policy( Birdsall et al)
Irony: In Canada, most jurisprudence brought by individuals
against the laws, not groups against corporations or state
Responsibilities to Communicate
Democracy thrives on creation of a culture of citizenship
Individuals have to assume responsibility to keep
informed, participate in the political process, and direct
their communication rights
The issue: if these responsibilities honoured, does the
State have to ensure there is non-commercial space for
communication alternatives?
Intervene to ensure choice
Fund alternative news sources
Support the CBC
But also support indie media more fully, in advertising, editorial
development, training and media literacy programs
This asserts there must be a positive role of the State in
providing citizens with the capacity to exert their franchise
Review
What is the theoretical framework for this class?
What do people say are the effects of the
media?
What are some of the central problematics in the
study of the media in Canada and around the
world?
The Overall Framework
Cultural Model of communication
How do the media and communication processes construct a
map of meaning in which people travel over time?
Explores the predominant democratic values,
constitutional frameworks and ideologies about what the
media ‘ought’ to do
Also implies point of view in evaluating how well they do
Explores lack of ‘culture of citizenship in the media’
From a sociological perspective, embraces both conflict
and interactionist perspectives
Assumptions of the “Cultural
Model”
Both market and state decisions about the media create our cultural
worlds
Systems and structures of ownership and control create professional
environments and values which promote a certain capitalist world
view
“cultivation” of world views, consequences on social stability,
political cohesion and democracy are profound
They are cumulative: long term: still only in second generation of
their effects
If you are a liberal/pro democracy, this is not fundamentally
disturbing
If you are critical of capitalism, you explore the operation of
hegemony working to suppress minorities, workers and the
dispossessed.
The Impact of Television: A
Canadian Natural Experiment
Communities like Igloolik twice voted
against having TV in the North
Eventually conceded
A study by Tannis McBeth Williams looked
at a natural experiment: before and after
introduction in 1970s. There was ‘notel’
‘mulitel’ and a control
A multi part study
Impact of TV on Creativity ( Key
to Culture of Citizenship)
Does TV facilitate or inhibit creative
thinking or imagination?
Looked at the alternate uses task
(e.g. tell me the different ways you can use a
newspaper)
Total number and originality scored
Findings: Creativity
Notel scored higher before TV
A drop in length people would try to solve
problems
Other dimensions: vocabulary use, spatial ability,
reading IQ followed similar trends
Particularly marked among children
Why?
TV displaced other activities where creativity is
valued: displaced deeper information processing,
encouraged convergent, not divergent thinking
TV suppresses a culture of creativity, intrinsic to a
culture of citizenship
Findings: Aggression/Civility (
Key to Culture of Citizenship)
Looked at patterns of children’s play
Aggression used in place of a social solution more often
Stereotyping and other expectations more prevalent.
Emotion, not Rational problem solving during conflict
promoted
Rejection of any effects not logically tenable
TV cultivates a ‘mean world’ syndrome which
saps a culture of citizenship, a sense of
community empowerment
Clearly, proven to displace other leisure pursuits
What are the Cultural Effects?
Media now predominantly commercially driven ( less
than 3% of TV viewing is now non commercial)
Exist to sell ideas, products values
Promote consumerism, individualism, will to gratify individual
choice
Promote ‘lifestyle’ politics: branding of self and identities
“post” modern valorization of choice, diversity, difference
All as superficial style
Promote an ethical relativism:
its all a matter of taste, if you don’t like it, switch it off
TV commodifies politics, creates a culture of consumers,
not citizens ( See Fletcher and McGrath)
What are the Political Effects?
Media set the agenda for what the public thinks is important
‘Frame’ news in a certain way
Public opinion polls repeatedly find what people say is the top problem facing the nation is
what the media are covering
So that elections are about the “horserace” and not the issues : Mayor DaVinci
So that there is a “war on terrorism” which legitimates almost total suspension of civil liberties
Guilty of war, not peacemongering?
Annenberg: cultivate a “mainstream world view” heavy TV viewers, lack of
tolerance for diversity or complexity
Historically: media focus on “ the now”: do not provide the past or contrary interpretations of the
past and present
Indirectly, send the political system into disrepute
may be contributing to the decline of party loyalty, rise of swing voters, or decline of voting levels ( Taras,
Fletcher and McGrath
Structural view: Key agent of socialization into values of democratic capitalism
Critical View: Key agent of hegemony: maintenance of power and exploitation
of weak
The Conflict of Values in News
Manufacture: Democracy’s Oxygen
What sells
What is ‘hot’ recent
What is close and
relevant
Reports stars
Involves conflict
Easily labels: reductionist
Unexpected, novel
What the society thinks it
values
What matters:
What is not ambulance
chasing
Reports broad
newsmakers and NGOs
Features conflict
resolution
Complex
Context: history, a map to
interpreting complexity
What are the social effects?
Fleras: media express dominant culture, contain minority
cultures, establish hierarchy, exclusion or inclusion
Promote social tolerance/intolerance or empathy/
indifference to ethnocultural or other difference
Now, media interaction requires higher and higher
access to money for the technology and literacy: creating
a wider digital divide: a middle class gated community?
The sociology of community is white, middle class and
gated
Several core dichotomies ( or
myths)
Citizen versus consumer
Market versus state
Regulation versus deregulation
Censorship versus freedom of expression
Liberal versus reform responsibility
Democracy versus Propaganda
Citizen versus Consumer
The audience is the commodity in commercial media: access to
them is bought and sold to advertisers
Their individual purchase/protest/switch off power is limited
Consumer can veto in the marketplace ( Napster) and win partial victory
Teeth of the self-regulatory bodies are weak
Consumer Sovereignty not all that is supposed
As citizens, they control the lawmakers
Are shareholders in the CBC: their only non commercial ( and
largest news source outside of Canada and in Canada)
Can complain/mobilize against offensive media
BUT fewer than 10% do so( MediaWatch Survey): most just think they
can turn off/ not turn to an alternative/or formulate community standards
Can argue for ownership laws: is a social movement arising in the US?
Citizen versus Consumer
CITIZENS
See a right to communicate
is central
Maximize collective public
goods
Concerned about digital
divide and growing gap rich
and poor
Focus on public interest,
social responsibility views
Positive rights
CONSUMERS
See freedom of choice
Maximize individual wants
See media as mostly
entertainment, and a luxury, for
those who can afford
Focus on right to make/spend
money, neo-liberal views
Negative rights only
Market versus State
Fleras, Winseck, Murray all make the case that the market is a
social institution
The market has its own form of economic and social censorship–
both direct and indirect
The market is structured by State
There is rarely a period of complete absence of economic regulation
in the media ( usually chaos at first introduction of a new medium
eg. Radio is ended by the industry’s request for regulation)
With concentration of ownership, there is a concern over fair
competition, adequate diversity of expression
State has been less likely to intervene in some media: with
globalization it is increasingly hard to intervene against the Multi
Nationals
Regulation versus Deregulation
There are many forms of regulation to promote Canadian cultural
industries in the face of US’s comparative advantage in cultural
production
Fleras argues that there are many tools ( can con quota,
simultaneous substitution rule, income tax breaks, intellectual
property law) in film and TV and entertainment
Canada faces unique economic challenges in globalization due to
the nature of the cultural commodity, and needs to negotiate the
freedom to invent its cultural policy in its own image with a cultural
accord
Regulation is needed by smaller markets, to offset competitive
disadvantage
Even when there is so called “deregulation”– that is no direct state
intervention-- there is indirect social regulation: the control of public
outrage or public controversy
Regulation versus Deregulation
Regulation
Typical of electronic media
Treat communication as a
scarce resource
Enact legislation ( eg.
Broadcasting Act)
Regulate: entry, terms of
service, standards of
service
Eg. Canadian content
quota, simultaneous
substitution rule, tax laws
To preserve a Canadian
choice
Deregulation
Typical of print and new
media ( irony: computers)
Treat communication as
service best provided by
competitors at market
Resist legislation
Allow some forms of selfregulation ( anti spam etc)
Now refers to removal of
ownership or other content
provisions
To preserve free trade and
open markets
Censorship versus Freedom of
Expression
There is no absolute right to freedom of expression in
the Canadian constitution
There are unique protections for minority expression, the
consideration of when, in certain cases, social good may
outweigh individual or corporate freedom of expression
Canada has some of the most progressive standards in
the world ( Gendersetting, Violence in Media etc)
But every case is different: there is a superordinate
freedom of expression, and some communities value it
more highly than others: but citizens must be aware of
how to influence community standards in its
interpretation and what are the main tests for evaluating
media contents
Censorship Versus Freedom of
Expression
Censorship
May override basic freedoms
when limits are ‘reasonable’,
‘democratic’( that is,
prescribed by law) and
demonstrably justified in a
free, democratic and
multicultural society
Censorship is social control by
the majority, necessary and
normal
Censorship may be enacted to
protect the minority from the
majority( hate)
Censorship can have effect:
that is, reduce risk or change
behavior
Freedom of Expression
Fundamental to the individual,
includes the media
Should therefore be absolute
Censorship is by an
elite/control oriented and often
misdirected at symptom, not
underlying cause of social
problems
Censorship is ineffective in
changing behavior: thwarts
rather than advances
democracy by hiding the
unpleasant or drawing more
attention to it
( see page 96: Fleras)
Liberal versus Reform
responsibility
What has been a pendulum in favour of privatization,
commercialization and a neo liberal view of the media has swung
abruptly back
Even very free market states like the US are involved in huge
military and security interventions
Most countries in the world, with the exception of the US ( and some
other regimes) consider the media a public good and subject to
responsibilities
Even in the US, a constant struggle between reformers and pro
marketers, with latter in the bare minority
But what we have now is a mixed economy: neo liberal versus
social responsibility views intermingle for the various media
With convergence: will there be a race to the bottom? Progressive
liberalization? What hope for poor countries?
Neo Liberal ( or neo-classical)
Ideology
Looks at cultural products like any other
Restricts role of State in regulation
Sees only a negative role for the state:
preventing market abuse
Looks at maximization of individual self- interest
as the most liberating communication force
Advancing aggressive platform for free trade
globally
Pushing for domestic deregulation
Reform Liberal Ideology
Treats culture as a public good not like a private
one
Expands role of State in regulation
Sees State as providing positive rights:
capacities for citizens to engage culturally
Looks at maximization of the public/citizen’s
interests
Looking for protections in the push to global
trade( a special covenant internationally on
cultural standards)
Pushing for reregulation: smaller
business/creator entry, restraint of dominant
players
Reform Liberal Ideology
A public good problem of cultural products is
recognized
Metaphor is not a commodity but a (natural) resource:
like air or water: scarce, but renewable, and common
property
Cultural/Information/Media Products are more important
than other products: they are either renewable( artistic
creation) or non-renewable( the Buddhist statues ruined
by Taliban)
The public good arguments:
( liberal humanist goal of ideal citizenry/continuity of a
society/political integrity/ creativity of expression/)
(nation-building) a sense of belonging
( multi-culturalism) a protection of minorities
Democracy Versus Propaganda
Historically, State’s have used propaganda against their enemies in
war, and certain techniques on their own troops/citizens to mobilize
in a ‘just’, democratically constituted war
Traditional propaganda during war has now expanded into ‘war on
terrorism’ with no clear time horizon or clear enemy
Democratic regimes now use political marketing, techniques of
persuasion widely
Sole protections: Ethics Commissioner, Access to Information Acts,
vigilant public press and vigilant public
Various Homeland Security Acts/ covenants on Terrorism pose a
real threat to press freedoms and public’s rights to privacy and to
know…especially raise the issue of racial profiling, new forms of
State oppression
( See Fleras, pp. 53-57)
Media in a Time of Crisis
Aftermath of 9-11 proves civil liberties are
vulnerable
State control of military intelligence
information is now very tight
Press not able to find out: about interned
prisoners ( importance of Arar case)
Canada not able to challenge US military
intelligence or find out about detained
citizens
Crisis Cont’d
US now threatening video surveillance cameras
at the border: ‘dictating’ 3 fold increase in
military expenditures ( Rumsfeld); a new
Canadian identity card; “surveillance society” of
George Orwell’s 1984 that threatens spillover
In the US, dissent is unpatriotic, or worse,
terrorist
A return to propaganda, racial profiling, risk of
McCarthy era in Cold War: and which press is
writing about this? The story is only beginning
The Media, Politics,
Marketplace and Democracy
We have been and will continue to be
involved in major global transformations of
economies, democracies, cultures and
societies
The best way to monitor the impact of
such change is through a vigorous news
media, committed artistic community, and
impassioned debates over ethical and
democratic issues
Media Reform Movements in
Canada
Social movements emerging ( Mediawatch, CRARR, Impacs, Fraser
Institute)
Anti war,and pro privacy
Calls for increasing support for CBC: merging it with the press
councils ( ending the individual ombudsman)
Increasing $ to alternative media
Federal investigation into mainstream oligopolies: a pressure which
is rising now that Minister Rock wants to deregulate the restriction
on 20% foreign ownership
More teeth– and supreme court challenges—on complaints on the
quality of media coverage to do with equity, or fairness
More studies of the content of the media: is it good or bad or why
The Public Opportunity
Venues like the World Information Summit
( sponsored by the UN)
The International Cultural Accord which
calls for fair trade in Culture ( UNESCO)
led by Canada and supported by over 50
countries
WTO: challenging again and again the
economism of their world view
Recommendations for Democratic
Communication
CULTURAL DEMOCRACY
Support public,
alternative, noncommercial space for the
media
Build media literacy and
awareness
Monitor and critique
mainstream media
Increase the quality and
coordination of selfregulation
CULTURAL
INDUSTRIES
Protect the Freedom of
the Press
Support private media
outlets against unfair
competition from the US
Build audiences for
Canadian media
Monitor and critique
alternative media
Remove regulation: there
is sufficient competition to
let the market decide
CMNS 130 Bottom Line
Media Politics Matter
Citizens must be aware of the democratic
consequences of the media worlds they
swim in
The best counsel for media tyranny is
indifference: beware of the Brave New
World