From reading Lister this week something which seems to be a prominent topic is the idea that online communication is able to generate democracy. For example, in the case of web journalism, Shultz suggested that the ability to leave a comment about a news piece on your favourite newspaper’s web site marked a change from passive consumption of mass media, to more active participation. (p. 177) Shultz argued that this gives us the opportunity to speak back to the media and have a more participatory role in debate.
However, in a study conducted by Shultz he found that journalists paid little attention to reader online forums, so the ability to comment on news pieces merely created the illusion of being able to participate. I would argue that whilst this may mean that the readers opinions and responses weren’t being used by the journalists themselves, this does not necessarily mean that they are completely redundant and it is not worth contributing at all. Rather, the ability to comment and leave a response means that people are becoming used to more actively consuming the news and offering an opinion about it, rather than not forming an opinion on it at all.
In addition, web journalism does mean that the public are able to gain unadulterated access to documents which previously they would have only seen through the media, in a more condensed and edited form. Therefore giving them the ‘real deal’ without having to wade their way through the changes made by journalists which would inevitably involve a change in the slant of the document in varying degrees.
Linking in with your first few points...
ReplyDeleteThe internet is seen as a way for people to express themselves "freely" which links in with Turkles ideas on online interaction. However, the 'active participation' is still controlled and from analysing newspaper forums last week I still think the ability online communities have to voice their opinions is still limited to some extent.
Sorry if i went off on a bit of a tangent then!