Scott Ruzal,The Age of Digital Citizenship and New Media

8/2/2019 Scott Ruzal,The Age of Digital Citizenship and New Media

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/scott-ruzalthe-age-of-digital-citizenship-and-new-media 1/25

Running Head: DIGITAL CITIZENSHIP

The Age of Digital Citizenship and New Media

Scott D. Ruzal

Rutgers University



Digital Citizenship 2

Introduction

Over the course of the previous decade, social networking and

internet communication platforms have become an essential component of

the disciplinary literature of media and politics. How researchers

perceive the development of this ‗new media‘ as a means for

broadcasting to mass audiences in the 21st century has not only shaped

contemporary attitudes regarding the use of digital communication, but

it has framed our understanding of current events according to how the

marketplace of ideas is affected by digital citizenship and civic

engagement. Moreover, the ways in which new media continue to blend

with traditional media, enhancing characteristics such as

instantaneous transmission and audience participation and feedback, is

creating hybridized media platforms that mature according to how users

choose to interact with them. It is for these reasons that just as

researchers begin to develop an understanding of the nuanced effects

that new media has on civic engagement and communication, even more

innovative media technologies are devised that obscure the

significance of previous research.

As Macnamera (2008) explains in his report on digital democracy

for The Australian Centre for Public Communication, the term ‗new

media‘ is broadly used to describe various concepts relating to

digital and internet media technologies, including the specific

applications used for one-to-one or one-to-many communication (5).

Examples of these new media characteristics have emerged in the form

of reader polls, comments accompanying online news articles,




professional news media outlets aggregating stories according to

popularity, independent news and information aggregates, forum usage

and online community development, and personal weblogs. Websites and

online communities such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Wikipedia, and

Reddit also provide users with a variety of tools for broadcasting

information and soliciting public opinion among both friends and

complete strangers. Other more politically-minded websites such as

MoveOn.org and Change.org seek to equip their users with tools and

information for building their own public advocacy campaigns and

organizations that may have a real-life impact on policy reform.

As roughly 30.2% of the world‘s population now has access to

these new media technologies (Internet World Stats, 2011), researchers

are looking to social networking as a fundamental paradigm shift in

the way humans connect with one another toward collective action

designed to address issues of public concern. Furthermore, a common

theme within contemporary media and politics research is whether the

rise of new media has brought about an emergence of the commercialized

mass-media platform directly to the public sphere, a key ingredient of

the ―networked information economy‖ proposed by Harvard Law Professor

Yochai Benkler (2006, p. 185).

Statement of Research Purpose

Does the relative anonymity and impersonal interactive elements

of new media serve as a conduit for activating citizenship and




political autonomy? Is open participation conducive to the quality of

information vetted by professional news organizations and private

citizens? Questions such as these make up some of the core research

problems being examined by academic professionals studying the

profound effects that new media technologies may have in changing the

relationship between media and politics. In the following literature

review, several theoretical frameworks will be addressed relating to

how new media has altered civic engagement in lieu of a Habermasian

public sphere. The purpose of this study is to contextualize some of

the core arguments made by prominent researchers studying media and

politics in an attempt to better understand how new media may act as a

legitimate means of participation in political discourse.

Resolving Mainstream Mass Media’s Democratic Deficit

Analyses of traditional media consolidation of ownership and

civic engagement within this establishment suggest that mainstream

mass media has become a significantly antidemocratic force its

influence over U.S. communication policy-making and, to varying

degrees, worldwide democratization (Herman, & Chomsky, 1988;

McChesney, 1996, 2000; Jacobs, 2000; Djankov, McLiesh, Nenova &

Shleifer, 2003). Despite the commercial and cultural hegemony of

traditional media, many independently cultivated digital media

platforms have managed to thrive financially over the past decade,

undeterred by exclusion from the system of consolidated media

ownership that directs the flow of advertising revenue to the majority




of commercial mass media outlets (Jenkins, 2006, p. 65). Tim O‘Reilly,

founder of O‘Reilly Media, attributes this deviation from traditional

business models to the advent of media applications designed to take

advantage of so-called Web 2.0 software principles, which refers to a

second generation of Internet-based services and applications

characterized by an extensive capacity for collaboration among a user

base and high levels of interactivity or overlap between users and

administrators without requiring any prior knowledge of computer

programming (O‘Reilly, & Battelle, 2004).

In Web 2.0: New Challenges for the Study of E-Democracy in an Era

of Informational Exuberance, Chadwick (2009) outlines seven themes

that may be used to describe the extent to which Web 2.0 has effect on

civic engagement:

The Internet as a platform for political discourse;the collective intelligence emergent from politicalweb use; the importance of data over particular

software and hardware applications; perpetualexperimentalism in the public domain; the creation ofsmall scale forms of political engagement throughconsumerism; the propagation of political content overmultiple applications; and rich user experiences onpolitical websites (p. 19).

While Chadwick‘s theoretical framework identifies the contextual

elements by which online civic engagement is primarily limited to the

degree of end-user connectedness, Macnamera (2008) concludes in his

content analysis of how new media was used during the 2007 Australian

federal election that most Web 2.0 type media used by Australian

political candidates and organizations specifically for political

communication were under the influence of corporate administration and




‗gatekeepers‘ of public opinion who sought to retain the traditional

one-way model of information dissemination (p. 10). However, his

findings also suggest that new media users in 2007 had not yet fully

realized the potential of personal weblogs and social networking as

venues for political discussion. In other words, this could imply that

the first generation of amateur new media users was not adequately

exercising the power of social media applications for participatory

democracy and claims-making within the public arena (p. 47).

The Changing Nature of Civic Engagement and Public Sphere

Maratea‘s (2008) examination of the emergence of the blogosphere

within the context of Hilgartner and Bosk‘s (1988) public arenas model

of social problem construction evaluates the mechanical advantages of

new media. His findings indicate that contemporary social media

applications enhance the ability of claims-makers to have their voices

heard in the diagnoses of social problems and competition for public

attention (p. 139). Additionally, the carrying capacity and relative

cost efficiency of social media in its function as a ―conduit through

which ordinary and not-so-ordinary citizens express their views... and

influence a policymaker‘s decision making‖ suggests that new media

technologies can be vastly more useful than traditional media to

fringe social groups seeking public recognition or influence over

policy-making (p. 142).




A similar argument pertaining to the changing nature of

civic engagement is made by Burgess et al. (2006), who contend that

active citizenship is not solely identified by exercising the right

and freedom to express one‘s own political culture and beliefs through

new media. Instead, new media has elevated the act of participation

within the public sphere to include everyday activities concerning

life, leisure, critical consumption, and popular entertainment

alongside traditional notions of political discourse (p. 1). In

developing their theoretical framework, Burgess et al. depart from the

Habermasian ideal of the public sphere that envisions a ubiquitous

space in which individuals can participate in the political process

through critical-rational discussion of topics that are of mutual

interest, resulting in the mediation and dissemination of public

opinion (Habermas, 1992). Rather than limit civic engagement to a

particular mode of discourse — critical reason — the argument is made that

new media‘s capacity for creativity and user generated content can

satisfy active citizenship within a socio-cultural public sphere

(Burgess et al., 2006, p. 6).

Hermes (2005) logic relating to the relevance of popular culture

is used as a fundamental principle in Burgess et al. (2006) for

evaluating how cultural citizenship affects shared meanings amid

political discourse and inclusive socio-political identities:

―Cultural citizenship as a term can be used in relation to less formal

everyday practices of identity construction, representation, and

ideology, and implicit moral obligations and rights‖ (Hermes 219).

Under these guiding principles, several case studies are analyzed in




an effort to connect the use of creative social media platforms such

as Flickr, which offers tools for the independent distribution of

original content, as forms of civic engagement. Their findings suggest

that everyday creative practices supplemented by the use of new media

technologies constitute civic engagement in ―the form of what Habermas

(1996) terms ‗episodic publics‘ — the ephemeral everyday encounters in

taverns or trains where citizens negotiate (or, in rationalist terms,

‗deliberate‘) matters of shared concern; or, ‗occasional publics‘ –

where groups of citizens gather for particular occasions (the rock

concert, the public funeral)‖ (Burgess et al., 2006, p. 12).

Rheingold (2008) analysis of the potential for new media to

encourage civic engagement among young people using the Internet is

one such example of how civic engagement can be solicited to specific

cultural publics. Using survey results and anecdotal evidence to

convey the pervasiveness of ‗participatory‘ media within the lives of

U.S. teens, Rheingold argues that teenage access to the Internet

largely transcends socioeconomic divisions, thereby eliminating many

of the barriers to entry for ―participation in the public sphere

through direct experience with online publishing, discourse, debate,

cocreation of culture, and collective action‖ (p. 102). By teaching

youths how to make use of their public voices at an early age, it is

hypothesized that access to new media technologies will increase the

individual‘s desire for active citizenship (p. 103). Rheingold

concludes by reiterating an argument made by University of Leeds

Professor Stephen Coleman that the education of today‘s youth requires

that particular attention be given to these new media technologies, as




they will undoubtedly continue to shape the future of communication

and how public opinion is formed. Therefore, we must recognize and

take advantage of the present transformation in the way young people

engage with one another and perceive the world through a digital lens,

Rheingold argues: ―that active use of networked media, collaboration

in social cyberspaces, and peer production of digital cultural

products has changed the way young people learn and that their natural

attraction to participatory media could be used to draw youth into

civic engagement‖ (p. 115).

Rheingold‘s argument was empirically substantiated later that

same year by a content analysis of student Facebook groups conducted

by Fernandes et al. (2008) during the 2008 U.S. presidential election.

Their findings indicated that Facebook had a positive impact on the

desire of college students to facilitate political discourse among

their peers as well as to engage in civic advocacy. The data also

suggests that although students participating in online political

discussion were inclined to embed themselves within exclusive social

circles that served to reinforce their prior support for a particular

candidate, Facebook was an effective tool for those supporters who

sought to organize on a local level, seek out new members, and express

their grievances with opposing candidates (p. 671). Fernandes et al.

(2008) conclude that there is great potential for Facebook and other

social networking platforms to cultivate future civic engagement among

young voters ―who seem to find themselves naturally at home in an

online environment‖ (p. 672).




The Emergence of a Networked Information Economy

The conclusions drawn by Maratea (2008), Rheingold (2008), and

Burgess et al. (2006) make up the constituent parts of what is now

being designated as the ―networked information economy‖, or the

emergence of a knowledge-based economy characterized by the enhanced

autonomy of individuals, the shift from a mass-mediated public sphere

to a multidirectional networked public sphere, and the practical

elimination of communication costs as a barrier to public speech

(Shapiro, & Varian, 1998; Benkler, 2006; Castells, 2009).

As information societies struggle to keep up with the evolving

consciousness of digital citizenship and new media, Benkler (2006)

argues that the structural apparatus of the commercial mass-media

environment is conferred upon private citizens whose experiences and

observations are now potential motives for public communication (p.

213). He expounds his conceptual understanding of new media‘s

democratizing effects on civic engagement and media economics

subsequent to U.S. Supreme Court opinion established in Reno v.

American Civil Liberties Union (1997):

The Web is thus comparable, from the readers‘

viewpoint, to both a vast library including millionsof readily available and indexed publications and asprawling mall offering goods and services. From the

publishers‘ point of view, it constitutes a vastplatform from which to address and hear from a world-wide audience of millions of readers, viewers,researchers, and buyers. Any person or organizationwith a computer connected to the Internet can―publish‖ information. Publishers include governmentagencies, educational institutions, commercialentities, advocacy groups, and individuals…




Through the use of chat rooms, any person with aphone line can become a town crier with a voice thatresonates farther than it could from any soapbox.Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, andnewsgroups, the same individual can become apamphleteer. As the District Court found, ―the content

on the Internet is as diverse as human thought.‖

According to Benkler, the argument that new media serves as a

catalyst for political discourse and civic engagement is supported by

its capacity to offset two major injustices perpetuated by commercial

mass media: (1) the inordinate amount of influence traditional mass

media gives owners over public opinion, and (2) ―its tendency, when

owners do not dedicate their media to exert power, to foster an inert

polity‖ (p. 220). Over the course of developing his argument for the

significance that the networked information economy has on the

liberalization of the public sphere, he uses empirical data relating

to how networked models of distribution support the spread of data

that have no relative ties to popular opinion. He also refutes

numerous criticisms of the qualitative impact digital media has on

civic engagement and its ability to promote diversity of opinion from

the bottom-up.

―Because of these emerging systems,‖ Benkler writes, ―the

networked information economy is solving the information overload and

discourse fragmentation concerns without reintroducing the distortions

of the mass-media model. Peer production, both long-term andorganized…as in the case of blogging…is providing some of the most

important functionalities of the media‖ (p. 271).




Conclusion

The literature relating to new media‘s effect on civic engagement

within the conceptual framework of a Habermasian public sphere

confirms that there is great potential for the future of the Internet

and social networking to enhance the ways in which individuals

communicate both among their peers and with government. While

instances of active digital citizenship have been identified by

researchers in a limited capacity, new media technologies appear to be

somewhat premature as legitimate means of mass communication and

access to the public sphere. Conclusive evidence used to illustrate

how new media characteristics are transforming communicative

boundaries is also very much incomplete, as the sudden appearance,

exponential growth, and multifaceted use of new media have encumbered

researchers attempting to keep up with developing social networking

trends.

However, the plurality of conclusions drawn in the literature

indicate that new media is indeed beginning to cause profound changes

within the realm of media and politics, and the Internet is rapidly

emerging as a primary venue for civic engagement and political

discourse. Whether social networking platforms will prove to be

equally as effective for informed citizens to coordinate their

knowledge into majority public opinion and the enactment of real

policy change is a question that still requires further study and

observation.




Research Proposal

This qualitative study is designed to illustrate the ways in

which new media may or may not undermine the dominance of commercially

owned media organizations in the U.S. by facilitating engagement with

the public sphere among private citizens on a comparable scale to

traditionally broadcast mass media. Collected data will also

demonstrate whether new media elevates user competencies in picking

and choosing messages that resonate most with their individual

worldviews, thereby reinforcing participation within the marketplace

of ideas and legitimizing the political speech of private citizens in

shaping overall public opinion.

Research Methodology and Dataset

The independent and dependent variables will be measured by

collecting data through a cross-sectional survey, in which a

questionnaire using a Likert-type ordinal scale will be administered

to a random sampling of 3,500 computer literate U.S. citizens, aged 18

to 65 years old, who have access to the Internet. The sample size was

chosen to ensure at least 1,000 complete responses will be received

(conforming with the average sample size for public opinion polls) and

to conceivably reduce the margin of sampling error to less than 3% for

the estimated percentage of the whole U.S. population.

Dependent variables. The dependent variables will consist of the

extent to which new media users engage in political discourse and/or

experience active citizenship.




Independent variables. Four independent variables will assist in

composing questions that will gauge how participation in the political

process is affected by new media user perceptions: (1) the perceived

degree of transparency in government, (2) the perceived legitimacy of

U.S. democracy and (3) trust in traditional mass media outlets, and

(4) the perceived impact of digital citizenship on the political

process as a whole.

The mean average of responses to a question that corresponds to a

particular independent variable will be used to qualitatively infer

the scope of new media‘s effect on democratization and political

engagement. New media user perceptions will then be cross-referenced

with three separate worldwide freedom indices used to measure and rank

perceptions of corruption, democracy, and press freedom among national

populations. Perceived government transparency will be measured

against the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) on which the United

States was ranked 22nd worldwide with a score of 7.1 (Transparency

International, 2010). Perceived legitimacy of U.S. democracy will be

measured against the Economist Intelligence Unit‘s Democracy Index on

which the United States was ranked 17th worldwide with a score of 8.18

(2010). Perceived legitimacy of traditional mass media outlets will be

measured against the Press Freedom Index on which the United States

was ranked 20th internationally with a score of 6.75 (Reporters Without

Borders, 2010).




Research Hypotheses

This research study will test and determine the validity of the

following hypotheses:

1. H-1a. Users who exhibit greater exposure to new media

technologies will express greater perceptions of transparency

in government.

H-1b. Users who perceive greater levels of transparency in

government will be more likely to engage in political

discourse and acknowledge active citizenship.

2. H-2a. Users who exhibit heightened sensitivity to interaction

on social networking platforms will express greater perceived

legitimacy of U.S. democracy.

H-2b. Users who perceive greater legitimacy of U.S. democracy

will be more likely to engage in political discourse and

acknowledge active citizenship.

3. H-3a. Users who exhibit greater exposure to new media

technologies will be more likely to express diminished levels

of trust in traditional mass media outlets.

H-3b. Of those who express diminished levels of trust in

traditional media outlets, frequent social networking users

will be most likely to acknowledge greater activation of

citizenship through digital media.




4. H-4a. Users who believe that digital citizenship has a

significant impact on the political process as a whole will be

more likely to engage in political discourse through new

media.

H-4b. Of those who engage in political discourse through new

media, frequent social networking users will be most likely to

claim new media promotes access to, and enlargement of, the

public sphere.

The following questionnaire will be administered to research

participants in order to address the aforementioned questions and

hypotheses:

Digital Citizenship and New Media Research Questionnaire

This research study is designed to measure the ways in which new

media technologies may or may not have a significant effect on how

users perceive and/or participate in the political process. The study

will also gauge how new media may or may not affect widespread public

opinion on a similar scale to traditionally broadcast or published

mass media. Collected data will demonstrate whether new media elevates

user competencies to engage civically within the concept of a public

sphere. The public sphere is defined as a ubiquitous space in which

individuals can participate in the political process through critical-

rational discussion of topics that are of mutual interest, resulting

in the mediation and dissemination of public opinion.




This questionnaire will be used to develop an understanding of new

media for conceptual analysis within the field of media and politics.

Please help us to further understand the dynamic relationship between

media and politics by answering the following questions according to

your sincerest experiences and opinions. It should take roughly 35

minutes for you to tell us about yourself and your experience with new

media technologies. The questionnaire is anonymous and will not affect

any new media services, software, or hardware that you currently use.

Please DO NOT put your name or initials.

1. Do you own a computer? ____________(If answer is no, skip to #3)

2. How many years have you owned a computer? ____________3. Do you have access to the Internet? ____________

(If answer is no, skip to #5)

4. How many years have you had access to the Internet? ____________5. How many people in your household own a computer? ____________6. How many people in your household have access to the internet?

____________

7. How many hours (estimate) do you use a computer on a typical day?____________

8. How many hours (estimate) do you use the Internet on a typicalday? ____________

9. How many hours (estimate) do you use the Internet on a typicalday? ____________

10. Do you use social networking platforms (i.e. Facebook, Twitter,Linked.in, etc.)? ____________(If answer is no, skip to #13)

11. How many years have you used social networking platforms?____________




12. How many hours (estimate) do you use social networking platformson a typical day? ____________

Please rate your assessment of the following statements on a scale

that ranges from one to five, with one indicating you strongly agree

with the statement and five indicating you strongly disagree with thestatement.

13. I post regular updates to a blog, community forum, socialnetworking, or microblogging website.

1 StronglyAgree

2 Agree 3 No Opinion 4 Disagree 5 StronglyDisagree

14. I interact with many people online, some of whom I do not knowin real life.

1 StronglyAgree


15. I keep up with current events in the news.1 Strongly

Agree2 Agree 3 No Opinion 4 Disagree 5 Strongly

Disagree

16. I actively participate in political discussion among friends.1 Strongly


Disagree

17. I actively participate in political discussion among strangers.1 Strongly


Disagree

18. I am an avid user of social media on the Internet.1 Strongly


Disagree

19. I try my best to vote in all statewide and federal elections.1 StronglyAgree 2 Agree 3 No Opinion 4 Disagree 5 StronglyDisagree

20. I am confident in my understanding of major political issues.1 Strongly


Disagree




21. Discussion of political issues on the internet is far moreobjective than among traditionally broadcast or published massmedia outlets.

1 StronglyAgree


22. Most people are misinformed in their perspective on politicalissues.

1 StronglyAgree


23. I receive the majority of my political news from sources on theInternet.

1 StronglyAgree


24. The majority of politicians and government officials aredetached from the issues that affect real Americans.

1 StronglyAgree


25. Many politicians and government officials are incompetent intheir role as public servants.

1 StronglyAgree


26. The internet is a reliable source for gathering information oncurrent events.

1 StronglyAgree


27. The internet allows me to keep up with government activities inways I wouldn‘t ordinarily be able to.

1 StronglyAgree


28. I actively participate in political discussion online.1 Strongly


Disagree

29. I feel comfortable expressing myself online in a public forum.1 Strongly


Disagree




30. Social media is a powerful tool for political activism.1 Strongly


Disagree

31. I feel comfortable expressing my political opinions on socialnetworking websites.

1 Strongly

Agree

2 Agree 3 No Opinion 4 Disagree 5 Strongly

Disagree

32. The Internet offers more specialized content than my localnewspaper.

1 StronglyAgree


33. Users of social media are more informed than cable news networkaudiences.

1 StronglyAgree


34. I refine my political beliefs according to information I gatheronline.

1 StronglyAgree


35. Social media enables me to contribute to overall public opinion.1 StronglyAgree 2 Agree 3 No Opinion 4 Disagree 5 StronglyDisagree

36. The internet magnifies the discussion of current events andpolitical issues.

1 StronglyAgree


37. I first hear about most political events on the Internet.1 Strongly


Disagree

38. I first hear about most political events on social networkingwebsites.

1 StronglyAgree





39. I would be less likely to think about or discuss politics if Idid not have access to the Internet.

1 StronglyAgree


40. I feel that I have engaged my duties as an active citizen.1 Strongly


Disagree

41. I feel a sense of fulfillment by staying knowledgeable ofcontemporary political issues.

1 StronglyAgree


42. I put my knowledge of political issues to good use.1 Strongly


Disagree

43. The Internet strengthens my confidence in the power of Americandemocracy.

1 StronglyAgree


44. Social networking platforms enable people to hold theirpolitical representatives accountable for their actions.

1 StronglyAgree


45. Digital citizenship is an embodiment of the future of governmentand politics.

1 StronglyAgree


46. Contemporary new media technologies enrich my life as a citizenof the United States.

1 Strongly

Agree

2 Agree 3 No Opinion 4 Disagree 5 Strongly

Disagree

47. All traditional mass media will eventually be replaced bydigital media.

1 StronglyAgree





48. I have access to my government representatives through socialnetworking platforms.

1 StronglyAgree


49. I am content with the way in which my government representativesact on my behalf.

1 StronglyAgree


50. Restricted access to the Internet would be a detriment toAmerican democracy.

1 StronglyAgree


Are there other comments you would like to let us know about?

Thank you for your feedback!

References

Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: how social production

transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University

Press.

Castells, M. (2009). The rise of the network society: the information

age: economy, society, and culture volume i. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-

Blackwell.

Chadwick, A. (2009). ―Web 2.0: New Challenges for the Study of E-

Democracy in an Era of Informational Exuberance‖. In I/S: A

Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 5 (1), 9 -

41. Columbus: Ohio State University. Retrieved June 18, 2011 from

http://www.is-journal.org/V05I01/Chadwick.pdf




Djankov, S., Nenova, T., McLiesh, C., & Shleifer, A. (2003). Who owns

the media?. Journal of Law and Economics, 46(2), 341-382.

Economist Intelligence Unit Ltd., (2010). Democracy index 2010.

London, UK: Retrieved from http://www.eiu.com/democracy/

Fernandes, J., Giurcanu, M., Bowers, K. W., and Neely, J. C. (2010)

The writing on the wall: a content analysis of college students

facebook groups for the 2008 presidential election. Mass

Communication and Society, 13: 5, 653 — 675

Habermas, J. (1992) The Structural Transformation of the Public

Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. (Trans.

Thomas Burger). Cambridge: Polity Press.

(1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse

Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, Polity Press.

Herman, E., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent: the political

economy of the mass media. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Hermes, J. (2005). Re-reading popular culture. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-

Blackwell.

Lambert, J. (2002). Digital Storytelling: Capturing Lives, Creating

Community.

Hilgartner, S., and Bosk, C. (1988). The rise and fall of social

problems: a public arenas model. The American Journal of

Sociology 94, 53–78.




Internet World Stats (2011). World internet usage and population

statistics. Miniwatts Marketing Group. Retrieved June 18, 2011

from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

Jacobs, R. N. 2000. Race, Media, and the Crisis of Civil Society.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: where old and new media

collide. New York, NY: NYU Press.

O'Reilly, T., & Battelle, J. (2004). Opening welcome: the state of the

internet industry. Proceedings of the Web 2.0 Summit. Retrieved

from http://conferences.oreillynet.com

Macnamera, J. University of Technology Sydney, Australian Centre for

Public Communication. (2008). E-electioneering: use of new media

in the 2007 australian federal election. Broadway, NSW.

Maratea, R. (2008). The e-rise and fall of social problems: the

blogosphere as a public arena. Social Problems, 55(1), Retrieved

from http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.1525/sp.2008.55.1.139

McChesney, R. (1996). The internet and US communication policy-making

in historical and critical perspective, Journal of Communication,

46: 98-124.

(2000). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in

dubious times (Rev. ed.). New York: New Press.

Rheingold, H. (2008). Using participatory media and public voice to

encourage civic engagement." Civic Life Online: Learning How




Digital Media Can Engage Youth. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press,

2008. 97–118.

Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 852–853, and 896–897 (1997).

Reporters Without Borders, (2010). 2010 world press freedom index.

Paris, France: Retrieved from

http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf

Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. (1998). Information rules: a strategic guide

to the network economy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Transparency International, International Secretariat. (2010).

Corruption perceptions index 2010. Berlin, Germany: Retrieved

from http://www.transparency.org/content/download/55725/890310

Documents

Scott Ruzal,The Age of Digital Citizenship and New Media