PerezHilton.com

There are arguably many paradigms of power at play in the public sphere, so, for clarity, this essay will focus on the power that the media holds in the public sphere, and how participatory culture has shifted traditional shackles. Many of the characteristics of the media shape how we view and discuss the world, and media audiences have traditionally been held in a vice-like grip of the many facets of power within the media. For example, there is little doubt that oligopolies rule the media, and, as a result, have a dominant influence on media product. Hassan highlights the power that media tycoons (or media tyrants) have, arguing that ‘with fewer players around the media product tends to have limited diversity’ (Hassan, 2004: 44). This means that the same viewpoints, formulas and agendas are being espoused over and over again simply because the media is not democratic, but is controlled by no more than a handful of tyrants. The concentration of media ownership creates a homogenic, ‘sanitised’ view of issues, and (Jenkins, 2004; Hassan, 2004: 45). Lavandeira’s blog, however, exemplifies how participatory culture in blogs shifts the power that traditional media had over to media consumers. For example, while many traditional media have condemned Paris Hilton, criticising her for starting a petition to keep herself out of jail, Lavandeira supported Hilton with this photo:

Here is a clear example of participatory culture at work. As blogs are cheap and easy to maintain, anyone with access to the internet can create a blog and broadcast their ideas and set their own agenda. Media audiences no longer have to go through traditional media to get their ideas heard. Blogging allowed Lavandeira to express his viewpoint without having to write in to newspapers that, due to space restrictions and gatekeepers, may not even have printed his views.

Another way in which power has shifted from media producers to media consumers is in the subjective nature of blogs. Bloggers such as Lavandeira are free from professional obligations of objectivity that journalists are tied to, hence why Hilton is able to align himself with a “cause” – freeing Paris Hilton. Through the use of subjectivity, Lavandeira is able to engage – even push – others into ‘the fierce heat of online debate’ (McNair, 2006: 122; PerezHilton.com, 2007). Debate and discussion are important for a healthy public sphere, and the shift of power from “objective” journalists to ordinary “subjective” citizens stimulates a much more heated debate, and therefore a much more dynamic and healthier public sphere. In this way, we see how blogs are much more conducive to engaging citizens into public debate with the ability to instantly post and reply to comments, which facilitates discussion in a much larger, more global way than traditional media ever could. Again, this suggests the way in which power in the public sphere is shifting from traditional media producers to media consumers through participatory culture.






The second screenshot here is an example of how the use of participatory culture and blogs in identity creation becomes political, creating an explicit link between “trivial” media and the public sphere. Although discussion on this particular comments page is somewhat superficial and does not scratch past the surface, the media audiences are grappling with a very real question here about participatory culture and its impact on the First Amendment. The owners of L.A. photo agency X17 Inc sued Lavandeira for infringing copyright laws, claiming that he obtained, altered and distributed their photographs without permission or credit (Abcarian, 2006). It is an example of a current struggle of power between a blogger’s right to participate, and corporate right over intellectual property. This is an important political issue, Jenkins suggests, as ‘participation is an important political right’ (Jenkins, 2006: 257). Jenkins argues that the First Amendment, in protecting rights such as freedom of speech, press, assembly and belief, protects the right to participate in democracy. Thus this incident becomes a prime example of how the increasing power of individual citizens in the public sphere has caused tension between old elite forces of power and new collective forces of power. It also suggests a new mechanism of control that traditional paradigms of power are exercising in order to control their loss of power to media consumers. This is not the only incident where a corporation has attempted to use copyright laws as a mechanism to control participation. Jenkins points to the Harry Potter Wars where fan fiction writers saw this as an attack on their right to free speech (see Jenkins, 2006: 169-205). However, as Jenkins, in the fight for participation, media audiences no longer have to remain passive because they now have an outlet for their own agenda and are active contributors to the public sphere (Jenkins, 2006: 205). Nevertheless, the potential that corporations have to establish such a restricting mechanism of control should not be ignored.