Thursday, 29 January 2009
Week 2 Topic QB
The Internet provides us with the sense of interactivity in which we are able to make a choice, which is unlike “old media” such as television, newspapers etc. The positive aspects of “New Media” is felt to such a degree that there is and underlying feeling to “strengthen and defend New Media” (Regnery, 2007: 252). The internet gives a greater impression that you are able to put your own thoughts and feelings across on a world wide scale, as a result the Internet is “the greatest source of returning power to the people” (Regnery, 2007: 155). Internet thus gives the appearance of an online democracy. However, it appeasers that the concept of New Media is nothing other than a cover up, the true role of the Internet is something much more cynical. Although your views are put forward from news websites and blogs, the government still have the ability to put their own ideologies and power across. For example China 2005 saw the beginning of an idea of “inta-Chinese network” despite being “incredibly fast” it would be a “government-owned company, and easily filtered,” (Goldsmith and Wu, 2006: 102) consequently the Internet would no longer be democratic but governed by the elite.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm a bit more sanguine about 'ownwership of the Inet'. At first, all the Inet was owned by the U.S. government, but its very construction means that it is not easy to control content (as the endless flow of spam and phishing combined with spyware and viruses attests).
ReplyDeleteAs the EFF say "information wants to be free" and this means that it will slip out despite "elites'" attempts to control it.
No, I'm more concerned about being swamped in simulacra, in 'messinformation' (my term) that seems to fulfil the role of knowledge, but which doesn't empower us to make our own good decisions. You could argue that powerful elites produce this tsunami of bilge with the intention of distracting us from the realities of life. (Why is all the media full of just how mad the global economic system had become now, after it's too late? If the BBC journos are so clever now, why weren't they saying anything last year?)
When drowning in hyperreal nonsense, it's very hard to spot the suppressed info that does slip out. Some say that it is in the blogosphere and in activist forums that this stuff emerges, but even then, it has to survive the debate with ill-informed produsers (possibly better thought of as 'produmers'? -my term). Generally most of us only get to know if one of the elite's channels pick it up and promote it (and that is seldom an innocent decision)
What do others think?