Can the Internet Properly Support Democracy and the Public Sphere?

Though the freedom of the Internet allows for citizens outside the domain of corporations to speak out, do individuals have the power or ability to shape the public sphere as much as media conglomerates?

Eric Lohman, PhD Candidate and Lecturer at Western University’s Faculty of Information and Media Studies, believes that the Internet does not necessarily promote democracy, but that it can be used as an effective tool. As he explains, the web has the potential to create an active online public sphere “by connecting citizens to the information that will help them make informed decisions” and “connect[ing] them to other citizens so that the issues can be debated and discussed.”

Citizen Journalism and Public Action

Author Bill Kovarik has noted, “political change […] is not only marked by a clash of classes or culture, but is often an outcome of changes in the way people exchange ideas.” Possibly the greatest attribute of the Internet is the online freedom that it affords users, allowing them to democratize global discussion by contributing to it themselves. Citizen journalism has revolutionized the way news is reported and stories are told, because the power to shape the public perception of events is no longer reserved for news corporations. In “Citizen Journalism vs. Traditional Journalism: A Case For Collaboration”, Corinne Barnes explains that traditional news media is similar to a monologue, whereas citizen journalism creates a dialogue that takes a life of its own, promoting reader engagement and a healthy public sphere of thorough knowledge.

[pullquote]the power to shape the public perception of events is no longer reserved for news corporations.[/pullquote]

Many analysts suggest that traditional reporting currently suffers from a lack of critical engagement. In their book The Business of Media: Corporate Media and the Public Interest, David Croteau & William Hoynes explain that traditional news media not only provide content for viewers, but also provide viewers for advertisers. Content such as news, therefore, must focus on drawing in consumers before providing strong material, resulting in the collision between private interests and the public interest. The trends of news broadcasters have shifted towards infotainment and snappy sound bites instead of thorough, thoughtful, and objective reporting. Citizen journalism, however, can avoid these problems because it is written specifically for the public interest and not for monetary gain. With diverse perspectives, active engagement, and no constraints, citizens can uniquely contribute to and democratize the public sphere.

In addition to citizen journalism, the Internet furthers public discourse through blogging, free access to information, photo-sharing, online forums, social networking, and more to come. The openness of the Internet allows people to change politics, and not vice-versa. Grassroots activism, social critique, and community-led initiatives have flourished online in a manner not possible before the 21^st century. From the Reddit community that saved a Kenyan orphanage to grassroots environmental activism in China, global initiatives – initiated by people – are possible thanks to an open, democratic, online public sphere.

Courtesy of throwthedamnthing

Online Pandemonium

One issue with the outbreak of citizen journalism, however, is that valuable voices are caught in a sea of intangible nonsense – a classic case of too many cooks in the kitchen. If everybody and their mother is interested in being heard, reputable perspectives that can actually present useful information are lost in the disorder. Additionally, with scores of untrained reporters comes irresponsible journalism. Barnes worries that “untrained writers may not understand concepts such as off-the-record material, attribution, balance, fairness and objectivity… They are not able to stand back from an issue and report the facts objectively, leaving the reader, listener, or viewer to come to his or her own conclusions.”

Journalistic credibility is at risk, to the point that Wikipedia has become a more popular breaking news source than the New York Times and the blogosphere.