‘We Media’ and

democracy Lesson 20

AIM: Revisit the arguments, theories around ‘We Media’ and Democracy; revise the terminology

Mock Exam Revision

Starter: Look at your terminology glossary and put a * next to any terms you don’t knowAsk your neighbour…

Ask your neighbour’s neighbour…

Ask me…

5 main questions we need to consider in A21. What is/are ‘We Media’ and what are the main arguments in this

school of thought?2. Where / how has ‘We Media’ emerged? 3. What are the positives and negatives of ‘We Media’? 4. In what way are the contemporary media more democratic than

before?5. In what ways are the contemporary media less democratic than

before?

Basic structure for your exam answer

- Introduction – outline your view of what democracy is and how it relates to the media. Briefly explain why media historically has not been very democratic.

- Point one – make point, include theory, give example- Point two - make point, include theory, give example- Point three etc. (different media form –

TV/Newspapers/Online)- Conclusion – potential future developments Where is this heading?

PointsLogical orderAssessment criteriaNote the time

Remember: • You need to include specific examples from case studies to back up

your points • At least 4 theorists• At least 2 media forms are studied • You should compare alternative ‘we media’ examples with other

examples of more established production and ownership models• Keep your main examples contemporary (last 5 years)

Case studies we have looked at and resourcesElection of Jeremy Corbyn (We Media 13) Paris attacks case studies (We Media)‘Black Mirror – The National Anthem’ (We Media 14) Your case studies (H:\Curriculum\English\Media Studies\We Media\Student case studies)Real People on TV (We Media 18) Russell Brand (We Media 16) Aftermath of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis (We Media 11)Remix Culture and pastiche (We Media 19)

Media and democracy – give your point of view (revisit your definitions) What should be the role of media in a democracy?

Tony Benn MPDemocracy brings about greater power for the people. The powerful have never liked or wanted democracy. It is an ongoing fight. The more democratic a society is the more power the citizen has.

Plato’s CaveThere needs to be elites who rule over the lower orders. Most people are not capable of self-rule so need educated and skilled people to make decisions for them.

How democratic has the media been in the past? Who owned it? Who made it?

NEITHER POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE

Chomsky ‘Manufacturing Consent’ • Mainstream media in a liberal democracy owned by

elite who are the same people who benefit most from the system as it is. Not a conspiracy: the system works well for them!• Doesn’t believe the internet is too much better as the

main owners are all still massive companies and the quality of journalism is weakened• Allow lively debate but set the margins and give

preference to views that echo their own• People believe they are getting a variety of opinions but

in reality it is quite narrow; makes their control stronger as we believe we are getting both sides of the story

EXAMPLE?

CASE STUDY?

Curtis’ ideas about the Internet • We create simplified (perhaps idealised) versions of ourselves

online • We often share incredibly personal details about our fears, likes

and desires which is incredibly valuable information for web companies.

• We give security services all the information they would previously have to spend months gathering

• We sell our pasts through our web history• From the information we donate companies, governments and

websites know more about what we want, how we think and can provide us with endless targeted distractions or things to buy! Amazon was one of the first companies to benefit from this approach

• The internet becomes a place where nothing ever dies and helps keep everything the same as it acts as a huge museum.

Curtis on the claims of social media’s role in cultural or political change“I’m not criticizing the Internet or Facebook or Twitter. In their main manifestations – the distribution of information – they’re wonderful, fantastic. What I take issue with are cyber-utopians who I think are mind-crushingly naïve, who see democracy as simply you, me and millions of other individuals connected together. And somehow if we could have perfect connections we could organize everything perfectly and there wouldn’t be any need for power. Facebook or Twitter can tell you where to join up and rebel but it doesn’t allow you to envisage another kind of world.” (in Forrest 2011:23) from McDougall ‘Media Studies – the basics’

Is ‘We Media’ truly global?

Consider regulation…

‘We Media’ is making contemporary media more democratic than before

POSITIVE

Dan Gillmor author of ‘We the Media’ – regular people are journalists

‘...news was being produced by regular people who had something to say and show, and not solely by the “official” news organisations that had traditionally decided how the first draft of history would look. The first draft was being written, in part, by the former audience. It was possible – it was inevitable – because of the internet.’ (Gillmor)

EXAMPLE?

CASE STUDY?

Dan Gillmor on ‘big media’• ‘...treated the news as a

lecture. We told you what the news was. You brought it in, or you didn’t.’• ‘Tomorrow’s news reporting

and production will be more of a conversation, or a seminar.’ (Gillmor)

EXAMPLE?

CASE STUDY?

Media 2.0 - Gauntlett

We can produce our own media and distribute it.

Issues around how you filter your choices but no longer consumers: now prosumers.

EXAMPLE?

CASE STUDY?

Tapscott – Grown Up Digital• “The print media company and the TV

network are hierarchical organisations that reflect the values of their owners. New media, on the other hand, give control to all users. The distinction between bottom-up and top-down organisational structure is at the heart of the new generation. For the first time ever, young people have taken control of critical elements of a communications revolution.” (p21)EXAMPLE?

CASE STUDY?

‘We Media’ is NOT making contemporary media more democratic than before

NEGATIVE

Morozov ‘The Net Delusion’- View that the web is emancipatory is a “mis-reading of

history”- Part of the technologically deterministic, cyber-utopian

“Google Doctrine” or “Twitter Agenda” – an exaggeration

- Doesn’t bring about real change; mainly ‘slacktivism’ - Governments are actually using the web for

propaganda, control, surveillance, censorship and suppression

- People are actually using the internet for sex, shopping and entertainment

EXAMPLE?

CASE STUDY?

Andrew Keen warns that we should not celebrate the possible end of big media

He warns that old media is facing extinction – “say goodbye to experts and cultural gatekeepers – our reporters, news anchors, editors, music companies, and Hollywood movie studios.”

In its place is amateurism: “If we are all amateurs, there are no experts.”(Keen)

EXAMPLE?

CASE STUDY?

Andrew Keen on what people actually talk about on the internet

‘...the internet has become a mirror to ourselves. Rather than using it to seek news, information, or culture, we use it to actually BE the news, the information, the culture.’ (Keen)

EXAMPLE?

CASE STUDY?

Surveillance – the internet is just part of a new and far more sophisticated method of control

Andrew Keen in his third book ‘The Internet is Not the Answer’ argues that the internet leads to monopolies who collect vast amounts of information about us- which we freely give them-and use that to strengthen their monopolies for their long term benefit and our short term gratification. Pointing to companies such as Google, Amazon and Facebook.

What is Web 3.0/Semantic Web? - RECAP

• Web 3.0 has a number of different definitions, but the most popular (and simple) explanation seems to be that it’s the virtual blending of online and offline worlds. An example of this might be your computer remembering your tastes and interests, so that your browser becomes like a personal assistant when you search or look for recommendations.

• Most importantly, Web 3.0. is an increase in computer intelligence, to the point where computers will be able to reason and analyze. But they’ll be better and more efficient at it than us.

Does this mean we only see what we want to see? The internet acts as an echo chamber – people are talking to people who agree with them; others can avoid the news/other points of view altogether.