As McNair suggests, ‘the internet, like no other communication medium, allows the formation of “diverse networks of opinion, and active participation” by non-professional, non-proprietal voices’ (McNair, 2006: 151). It has been a conscious decision to exemplify that argument by studying two blogs that apparently have different networks of opinion to show how participatory culture in all blogs shifts and entrenches new power in the public sphere, and the diverse and fragmented network of opinion is necessary for a democratic media. As already demonstrated and argued, a homogenous viewpoint from traditional media can sanitize our view of the world, and traditional media can decisively mold our view of the world (Hassan, 2004: 44). Access to diverse opinions helps to produce a less sanitized, less molded understanding of the world and issues. A key moment for the blogosphere was the hijacking attacks on 11 September 2001, where ordinary citizens felt that they had a motive and a means to enter the debate on the War on Terror, free of gatekeepers that “protect” traditional media (McNair, 2006: 124). In the Middle is an example of such blogs. Raed is an Iraqi who blogs about the developments of Iraq from the US. Again, as PerezHilton.com demonstrates how blogs and participatory culture can shift paradigms of power by offering a different view than the main agendas set by tyrants, gatekeepers and journalists, In the Middle does the same in an arena that is overtly political. This leads to an expansion of the range of views available, as media consumers now participate in agenda setting. Agenda setting is the ability to put forward ideas to discuss, and traditional media has traditionally held this power to tell people what to think about (Hassan, 2004: 46). This was clear in the US media after 9/11. Many media outlets, for whatever reason, were unwilling to delve deeper into US policy and question the legitimacy of invasion, especially invasion of Iraq. This gave rise to blogs such as In the Middle who were able to set their own agenda and not be tied down to the politics of traditional institutionalized media.
However, while the absence of a gatekeeper was originally considered an improvement, it is also a disadvantage. Without gatekeepers, there is the potential that offensive remarks are posted and even threats. This led to the current model of publishing a blog first and then filtering it later. For example, In the Middle has this rule on its site (In the Middle, 2007):
Any comment that espouses violence, hatred, racism, sexism, and/or generally abusive language is subject to removal. Any comment that aims to silence other points of view through intimidation, ad hominem attacks, and/or other methods is subject to removal. Any spam, advertisements, and lengthy posts flooding the section are subject to removal.
Throughout this essay it has been argued that, in terms of blogs, participatory gives media audiences a voice and re-engages citizens by allowing them to participate in discussion and as an extension, democracy. However, the fact that the administrators are able to remove comments is a new mechanism of control. It is an old mechanism of control in the fact that it is a form of gatekeeping, which is customary in traditional media production, but it is also a new mechanism in that the control is being enforced by an ordinary citizen on other ordinary citizens. Without the claim of objectivity, Jarrar has the potential to silence any voice he disagrees with. In fact Jarrar has taken this further, and has arguably removed reader’s right to participate by actually disabling readers to comment (In the Middle, 2007). Where traditional media has the ability to mold how we see the world, bloggers have the ability to completely silence others’ views.
However, while the absence of a gatekeeper was originally considered an improvement, it is also a disadvantage. Without gatekeepers, there is the potential that offensive remarks are posted and even threats. This led to the current model of publishing a blog first and then filtering it later. For example, In the Middle has this rule on its site (In the Middle, 2007):
Any comment that espouses violence, hatred, racism, sexism, and/or generally abusive language is subject to removal. Any comment that aims to silence other points of view through intimidation, ad hominem attacks, and/or other methods is subject to removal. Any spam, advertisements, and lengthy posts flooding the section are subject to removal.
Throughout this essay it has been argued that, in terms of blogs, participatory gives media audiences a voice and re-engages citizens by allowing them to participate in discussion and as an extension, democracy. However, the fact that the administrators are able to remove comments is a new mechanism of control. It is an old mechanism of control in the fact that it is a form of gatekeeping, which is customary in traditional media production, but it is also a new mechanism in that the control is being enforced by an ordinary citizen on other ordinary citizens. Without the claim of objectivity, Jarrar has the potential to silence any voice he disagrees with. In fact Jarrar has taken this further, and has arguably removed reader’s right to participate by actually disabling readers to comment (In the Middle, 2007). Where traditional media has the ability to mold how we see the world, bloggers have the ability to completely silence others’ views.
Bloghosts, however, have reserved the same rights as Jarrar has to remove blogs and blog pages that are considered offensive, thus silencing participants in the same way that Jarrar did. This links back to my argument that corporations are gaining a much more extensive ability to control the public sphere, despite the apparent shifting of power within the public sphere. As media ownership concentrates, corporate reach extends, and conglomerates hold the power to potentially silence citizen voices in the public sphere by removing their ability to be heard. This can be done through lawsuits, or even simply removing “offensive” pages. This argument may seem cynical or exaggerated, however when media tycoons/tyrants give speeches that talk of the potential of the net to “expand our reach,” as Rupert Murdoch did in 2005, it is hard not to be (McNair, 2006: 120).
No comments:
Post a Comment