W3_Theorizing political communication and technology (II).pptx

Theorizing political communication and technology (II) (Political Communication and New Media) Learning Objectives Learn the connection of public sphere and new/social media. Learn the argument for social media as public sphere. Learn the argument against social media as public sphere. Socia...

Theorizing political communication and technology (II) (Political Communication and New Media) Learning Objectives Learn the connection of public sphere and new/social media. Learn the argument for social media as public sphere. Learn the argument against social media as public sphere. Social Media And Political Protest Today, social and political reform or revolution can occur with the internet and social networking sites. Nowadays, the latest generation of ‘smartphones’ enable users to take photographs, record video, access the internet and communicate instantly via social networking tools. The use of cell phone text messaging by demonstrators to coordinate protests was first witnessed during the revolution that brought down General Suharto in Indonesia in 1998 and during the ESDA II protests in The Philippines that led to the resignation of Joseph Estrada in 2001. One of the first examples of the use of the internet in Asia for political protests occurred in Malaysia during the Reformasi protests of 1998 and in the aftermath of the detention of its de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim.  Social Media And Political Protests In many less democratic countries worldwide, such as in Iran and Egypt, the state of government could monopolise the production of content traditional media such as television and newspapers. The new social media allowing Individual users to post their own stories and become citizen journalists, sharing and evading censorship controls of repressive regimes such as during Arab Spring Some also argue that the impact of the internet on politics is widely exaggerated, because: the spread and penetration of internet access remains limited to a small, largely urban middle class elite; significant digital divides continue to exist; the majority of internet users are not interested in politics and instead use it to communicate with friends, to shop, game or simply to idle away the time.  Social Media And Political Protests Some argue that authorities are using more sophisticated techniques to respond to the use of social media by their citizens: filtering technologies to block certain websites and keyword searches, blocking access to specific sites or sub-networks (such as YouTube or Facebook), disconnecting cellular services or simply ‘switching the internet off’ by blocking ‘the entire country’s access to global networks’, using cybertroopers and bots to spread their messages into the social media, harassment, intimidation and detention of prominent activists who use social media. Argument for Social Media as a Public Sphere The Internet, including social media sites, is organized in ways that meet the requisites of a public sphere. Many scholars most making theoretical arguments (without empirical data) have explored this potential (for example: Fuchs 2012; Jenkins 2006; Loader and Mercea 2011; Papacharissi, 2010; Sørensen 2016). The few empirical studies on the topic primarily use conversation analysis of existing social media posts to study social media as a potential public sphere (see for example: Halpern and Gibbs 2013; Sørensen 2016; Vromen, Xenos, and Loader 2015). Some of these studies found limited instances of civil discourse online such as the White House Facebook page (Halpern and Gibbs 2013) and the Danish Parliament’s social media sites (Sørensen 2016), as well as for less connected “gatekeepers” of a social media network (Miller et al. 2015). However, some youth, particularly in the United Kingdom spoke of social media’s potential for constructive political discourse (Vromen et al. 2015). Argument for Social Media as a Public Sphere Social media’s general structure appears to provide unlimited access to information and equal, protected participation (Loader and Mercea 2011; Shirky 2008). Further, the Internet is relatively accessible and, in theory, anyone can distribute information, making both participation and information acquisition free from outside influence (Fuchs 2012; Halpern and Gibbs 2013; Jenkins 2006; Loader and Mercea 2011; Van Dijck 2012). Argument for Social Media as a Public Sphere Social media sites, particularly Facebook, promise favorable conditions for the public sphere. For example, Fuchs (2012) notes that Facebook is the second most accessible site; with 43.3 percent of the world’s Internet users participate. Facebook is free, requiring only an Internet connection and e-mail address. Therefore, social media may revitalize the public sphere by allowing people “to challenge discourses, share alternative perspectives and publish their own opinions” (Loader and Mercea 2011:760). https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021- malaysia Argument for Social Media as a Public Sphere Further, on social media, users can access and share information outside of the financial influence of mass media (Loader and Mercea 2011) and corporations by providing “access, participation, reciprocity, and peer-to-peer rather than one to many communication” (Jenkins 2006:208–9). Shirky (2008, 2011) argues that social media has revitalized the public sphere, noting that “the networked population is gaining greater access to information, more opportunities to engage in public speech, and an enhanced ability to undertake collective action” (Shirky 2011:29). Although he admits it is “difficult to keep online conversations from devolving into either name-calling or blather” (Shirky 2008:50), committed participants generally engage online in a way similar to communicative action. More specifically, Shirky (2008:83) also lauds the “user  The Argument AGAINST Social Media as a Public Sphere Many other researchers have criticized the idea that social media sites have revitalized the public sphere (Baumgartner and Morris 2010; Fuchs 2012; Gladwell 2010; Van Dijck 2012; Wolfsfeld, Segev, and Sheafer 2013), including Habermas (2006), and those who originally theorized that social media may have led to the re-emergence of this space. Generally speaking, the Internet and social media sites have not promoted unlimited access to information, equal access and participation, nor have these spaces— particularly social media sites—been free of institutional influence. Overall, they argue, communicative action is not occurring on these sites (Fuchs 2012; Habermas 2006; Jenkins 2006). The Argument Against Social Media as a Public Sphere : Access to Information and Equal Participation Information on social media sites is not unlimited, nor is it equal in its access. Exclusion of information happens in multiple ways. In a criticism of Habermas (1985), Fraser (1990) argues that the original theory of the public sphere fails to account for the social exclusion of women and minorities. Equal participation and unfettered access is an unrealistic ideal and the social barriers to accessing information and participation refute claims of a revitalization of the public sphere on social media (Papacharissi 2010). Therefore, promoting the idea that unlimited access and equal participation exist on social media ignores the social and political realities  The Argument Against Social Media as a Public Sphere: 1- Access to Information and Equal Participation In addition, not everyone has access to the Internet. While social media sites are free to join, a device and/or an Internet subscription are cost prohibitive for some. Accessibility to the internet also problematic. In speaking about those who contribute to the information available, Jenkins (2006) states that: they “make no claims on objectivity; they are often unapologetically partisan; they deal often with rumors and innuendos; there is some evidence they are mostly read by people who already agree with their authors’ stated views” (Jenkins 2006:216). So, although the accessibility of information online has the potential to be empowering and is indicative of a public sphere, it is more likely that niche communities form. Contributing information “may on one level be facilitating the flow of ideas across the media landscape; on other levels, they are ensuring an ever more divisive political debate” (Jenkins 2006:216).  The Argument Against Social Media as a Public Sphere: 1 - Access to Information and Equal Participation Exclusion happens on the part of the user. With little tolerance for differing points of view, differing opinions can be easily and effectively excluded because “we tend to seek out like-minded communities on the web” (Jenkins 2006:207) but ”always move elsewhere if the group reaches conclusions that run counter to their own beliefs or desires” (Jenkins 2006:231). This behavior results in an “echo chamber,” the constant reiteration of a similar message creating an echo of one opinion, reinforcing its truth and forcing out rebuttal (Jamieson and Capella 2008). Information thus becomes restricted as users no longer make space for competing points of view. The Argument Against Social Media as a Public Sphere: 1- Access to Information and Equal Participation Elsewhere, scholars have noted that participation in politics occupies a smaller, briefer portion of their activity online. In their qualitative study of political participation on social media through discussions on the White House Facebook page, Halpern and Gibbs (2013:1166) concluded: “most... are not debating rationally or deeply in this media. This suggests that political exchanges on social media may be more superficial in nature, rather than being characterized by in- depth debate or deliberation, and calls into question their efficacy.” This short-term investment in political discussion means that participants leave the conversation before meaningful discussion of multiple points of view can occur, constraining the free exchange of information. The Argument Against Social Media as a Public Sphere: 2- Surveillance Constrains Information and Participation Information and participation is also constrained because of the presence of surveillance practices on social media (Fisk 2014; Marwick 2012; Staples 2014; Trottier 2011; Westcott and Owen 2013). Surveillance is the “focused, systematic and routine attention to personal details for the purposes of influence, management, protection or directions” (Lyon 2007:14) and is performed at the state, institutional, and interpersonal levels. As the definition of surveillance suggests, when individuals are aware of the presence of surveillance, they alter their behavior (Lyon 2007). The Argument Against Social Media as a Public Sphere: 2- Surveillance Constrains Information and Participation Because surveillance is present on social media (Trottier 2011), these sites are likely spaces where behavior is constrained due to the monitoring by others: friends, family, employers, police, and government entities (Staples 2014; Trottier 2011). This monitoring limits the freedom that users feel to use the site for a meaningful and free exchange of ideas. Instead, users may be hesitant to be honest about their political leanings for fear of online harassment and the potential effect it has on their employment or relationships with family and friends. The Argument Against Social Media as a Public Sphere 2- Surveillance Constrains Information and Participation Surveillance also allows for algorithms that constrain information (Loader and Mercea 2011) seemingly at the “preference” of the user (Trottier 2011). Facebook algorithms will predict what you want to see based on what you click on and who you seem to interact with most (Oremus 2016). In general, Loader and Mercea (2011) and Jenkins (2006) argue that there is too much information on the Internet and without a filtering system, individuals are not able to make meaningful sense out of what they have access to. However, these filtering systems often prevent individuals from experiencing opposing points of view or diverse information on particular topics, as algorithms prioritize information consistent with what users view and search for online. The Argument Against Social Media as a Public Sphere 2- Surveillance Constrains Information and Participation The presence of surveillance on social media also illustrates the influence of institutions, particularly economic interests. Fuchs (2012) argues that social media sites permeate the boundaries between public and pFacebook exploits this collapse by privatizing and commodifying the information users sharerivate life, and that. In short, Facebook is a corporate entity with financial gain as the primary goal. Social media has largely been privatized, its widespread usage resulting in the public’s general (albeit often unaware) consent to this process (Andrejevic 2011:278).  The Argument Against Social Media as a Public Sphere: 2- Surveillance Constrains Information and Participation Overall, Habermas (2006:415) argues that new mediated communication falls short in revitalizing the public sphere because there fails to be “reciprocity between speakers and addressees,” and that algorithms are indicative of the power of the institution of mass media, a presence that prevents a public sphere from forming. Instead, mass media in this new medium still “select and process politically relevant content and thus intervene in both the formation of public opinions and the distribution of influential interests” (Habermas 2006:419). Social media sites are riddled with institutional influence in the presence of corporate interests largely controlling the information presented and gathering information beneficial for targeting advertisements. Habermas ( 1991) is explicit in asserting that the presence of monetary influence contradicts the essence of a public sphere. With information and participation constrained and institutional influence present, social mediafall far short of providing an environment conducive to the public sphere. Malaysia: New Media and Politics Malaysia presents an interesting case study of the challenges posed by the internet and social media in semi-democratic regimes. In 1995 Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad launched the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC). The project included a commitment that there would be no censorship of the internet in Malaysia. The internet become a significant alternative medium for opposition group when the Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim was sacked in September 1998. The subsequent detention of Anwar, and his later highly controversial convictions for corruption and sodomy, provided a further stimulus to internet activism of which the most famous became the website of the Free Anwar Campaign run by Raja Petra Kamaruddin. Malaysia: New Media and Politics (MalaysiaKini) In November 1999, taking the government’s commitment not to censor the web at its word, former Star journalist Steven Gan launched the country’s first commercial online newspaper, Malaysiakini. Unlike the country’s mainstream print and TV media, which is heavily biased toward the government, Malaysiakini remains free of government regulation and is regarded domestically and internationally as one of the few credible independent voices in Malaysia. It has been the subject of attacks, both virtual and real, including three police raids in which computers and servers were removed. The website was briefly shut down just before state elections in Sarawak in April 2011. Initially Malaysiakini was a free service which, despite advertising, was dependent on funding from overseas press- freedom and democracyadvocacy groups, including the Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA), which had provided an initial seed grant to start the initiative, and the Media Development Loan Fund (MDLF). To provide a more sustainable source of funding, Conclusion We need to be careful to avoid hype when investigating the role of the internet and social media. Although the internet itself is not a causal factor for democratisation it nevertheless does limit the options for authoritarian regimes. The technology is democratising in the sense that it connects, empowers and informs a greater number of people than ever before. Citizens can exchange views both on issues that pertain to the common good and on those that conflict with the dominant norms and contexts of a particular society and cultural environment. This does not mean that Facebook campaigns and activists ‘tweeting’ will cause political change. For democratic transition to occur, local actors, local processes/activities and specific factors will always play a significant role. References Lisa M. Kruse, Dawn R. Norris & Jonathan R. Flinchum (2017): Social Media as a Public Sphere? Politics on Social Media, The Sociological Quarterly, pp. 1-23.