How might the influence of new media be said to strengthen or weaken the public sphere?

The public sphere is where people discuss and debate ideas this promotes democracy and the spread of ideas. New media has allowed more debates to emerge in the public sphere, which promotes democracy. New media has strengthened the public sphere by enabling people to access and upload footage, images and written accounts. This has been made easier by having greater access to the internet and the possession of mobile phones and small cameras.

For example, new media allowed the Syrian uprising to be viewed by the rest of the world. Syrians have shown the world what was going on through the use of amateur footage of protests and their violent aftermath. Mobile phones and small cameras were used to capture footage which was then uploaded by computers on a 3g mobile. this is important because people need to be informed to promote democracy. the public sphere is a central aspect of good governance. Without a functioning and democratic public sphere, government officials cannot be held accountable for their actions, and citizens will not be able to assert any influence over political decisions. 

However new media can encourage or allow misinformation where some people can be biased, and anonimity as some people can pretend to be someone they're not. This has weakened the public sphere as these issues can cause unwanted stress to the various consumers. 
For example, a Syrian 'lesbian blogger' was revealed to actually be a married American man living in Edinburugh. The blog released in the first place to explain what it was like to be a lesbian in Syria. The blog had many followers from Syria. There was a post in the name of Amina's cousin stating she had been snatched by armed men in the streets of Damascus. This news on her blog sparked internet campaigns to release her. this was until they found no evidence or key details that could be corroborated. This put some of the Syrian gay community's safety at risk and seriously harmed their cause. This was because they were openly campaigning for her release putting themselves at risk of getting 'snatched' also if they were found, which is more likely to happen whilst this campaign was happening.
This is important because anonimity can cause misinformation to occur and on a big scale, such as the Syrian lesbian, can be fatal. 
New media has anonimity within it as people cannot immediatly be discovered online therefore more people are likely to make extreme and irrelevant comments on an issue. This weakens the public sphere as we would question whether everything we read is true or not, or rather not question the information and be mislead. 


The public sphere has been strengthened by new media as it allows us to debate the news with a wide range of people. this has been made possible by allowing viewers/audiences/consumers to comment  on various pieces of news from around the worlds freely.
For example during the Syrian uprising journalism was banned. However new media allowed protestors to upload footage from the protests and even videos taken by members of the army, often mocking and abusing dead bodies were also leaked out. This allowed viewers from across the worlds to see the protests and how the army operated. This could then be debated online worldwide, Syria would have been seen in a bad light due to the exposure of these videos and the fact that people were able to debate it so openly with others. This is important because it makes people feel more free to express their opinion on matters in various places around the world. 
The public sphere is strengthened by this as it encourages people to debate the news and the public sphere is where people discuss ideas and views. Again, new media is promoting democracy within the public sphere by allowing people to debate the news with each other. I think that new media does more good than bad as it allows people with similar opinions/interests to communicate from all over the world, in a free and easy way. 


On the other hand, new media has weakened the public sphere as the validity of some of the information in the public sphere can be questioned, meaning that not all the information published to the public sphere can be trusted and taken as true all the time. 
For example, the case of the Syrian lesbian blogger who turned out to be a 40 year old man living in Edinburgh shows how some information cannot be valid and therefore not trustworthy for the consumers. Once there was evidence on the 40 year old man social websites such as twitter and blogger reacted in outrage to this. More information was being discovered on 'Amina's' supposed relationships with various women. Amina was who the Syrian lesbian blogger was known as. Direct emails with the Guardian and pictures, passed off as Amina, but were not available to comment. Those who were frustrated with this outcome were unable to  specifically comment on the supposed relationships Amina was having.
This is important as the validity of information can hinder the spread of democracy in the public sphere. This is because less people trust what they are consuming and therefore, are reluctant in participating in what could turn out to be a pointless discussion.


From these points discussed above I feel that new media does strengthen the public sphere far more that it weakens it. Even so, there are various issues surrounding the validity of the information and who is saying what in the public sphere. These points do no necessarily hinder the progression on democracy in the public sphere they simply point out the problems. Democracy is still able to spread and continue through the public sphere, this shows that these problems may not necessarily be a great issue as of yet. 

The Long Tail and Wikinomics

• What is Chris Anderson's theory of The Long Tail? 

Anderson's theory of the long tail is that people are now buying more 'niche' products rather than focusing on the mainstream products at the head of the tail. Therefore this creates the long tail effect on a graph showing how mainstream products and niche products should be equal at each end of the tail. Anderson also says before the internet shops would only stock bestselling CD's, DVD's or books.
He also points out that we expect a hundred percent availability these days as to what we buy online, and that we will buy it no matter what it costs. now mostly everything is available online to buy, not just the mainstream products so we have a wider range as to what we can buy therefore we buy exactly what we want, old or new.

• What does the long tail theory mean for the music industry and other areas of media such as online television?

This theory for the music industry means, that people are now able get so many things online now the peak of the long tail is rapidly thinning. This is because people can find many more upcoming artists music which may not be availiable to the mainstream market, therefore poeple tend to search online more to find these tracks and do not contribute to the peak of the long tail.
Also now that nearly all types of music is available online, people buy more singles rather than going out to buy the albums, this decreases and largely effects the sales of CD's of mainstream artists.
For other media such as online television their mainstream market is effected however, they use this to their advantage by allowing viewers to consume television online easily. This encourages their viewers to engage more with television which is not comsumed online.

• What is Don Tapscott and Anthony Williams' theory of Wikinomics?

 It explains how mass collaboration is happening not just on websites like Wikipedia and YouTube, but also at traditional companies that have embrased technology to breathe new life into their enterprises.

• What are the big 5 ideas of wikinomics and how might these be applied to the music industry?

Peering - the free sharing of material on the internet. This is shown in the music industry by sites such as youtube and illegal file sharing on places like limewire.
Free creativity - is a natural and positive outcome of the free market so attempting to regulate and control online remix creativity is like trying to hold back the tide. Applying it to the music industry shows when various people do covers of popular songs or create their own version using different peices of music.
The media is democratised by peering, free creativity and the we media journalism produced by ordinary people.
Thinking Globally - Web 2.0 make s this inevitable as the internet is like the worlds biggest coffee house, an instant global communication sphere.
Perfect Storm - is what all these things result in, which creates such a force that resistance is impossible, so any media company trying to operate without web 2.0 will be like a small fishing boat on the sea during a freak meteorological occurrence.

Are the media becoming more democratic?

Many new types of media have been launched such as new media which includes social and digital media, these types of media have altered the way we consume, produce and distribute media nowadays. Some would argue that these types of media is what has made media more democratic now, whereas mainstream media, as we can clearly see, is not democratic.

Social media are sites such as Facebook and Twitter, these social media sites allow many people to upload their content for other users to see and comment on. This shows the media in a democratic way as the 'audience' as we would see them traditionally, are able to upload their own information, along with uploading others are able to comment, like or dislike and share that information. The introduction of these site have allowed many people to have their say and contribute to various discussions in an online forum. 

However before new media, it was limited on how and what you could contribute to topical debates, in the past people would usually call in to radio chat shows and email them to get their view across. Even so not everyone would be able to do this or even be heard, now we can see new media allows anyone on the internet to continuously contribute to debates. 

David Gauntlett believes that media is becoming more democratic due to the expansion into web 2.0. He explains that web 2.0 which is sites such as YouTube and Blogger, create easier access for the 'audience' and also that we are now becoming a more active audience as we ourselves can produce and distribute media to these sites. Web 2.0 has an analogy of a garden to which many people contribute to, and this allows it to grow and be used as a tool to be heard. David Gauntlett supports the theory that media is becoming more democratic.

For example many newspapers have now launched themselves online and have encouraged readers to comment on stories. The daily mail has now become the biggest online newspaper, they're website allows readers to comment and discuss stories with others and people who work in the paper also. They also have a variety of blogs which readers can follow and read whenever they want. This promotes democracy within media as the audience are now active in the news and their views can be heard. 

These points discussed show that media is becoming more democratic and it also shows how much choice we have when we want to contribute to online debates. Almost anything can be discussed online and in web forums, I feel that media today is becoming more democratic. 

David Gauntlett

According to Gauntlett, what was "the media" like in the past and what changes have occurred?
People had to shape their lives around media schedules which were created, which shows that the media has a dominant role over the consumers. this is because people don't have much choice about how or when they can consume media. To produce media people needed big recording devices and then o distribute it all they needed a big broadcasting company or movie studio. This made it hard to produce and distribute media because these things were expensive and not everyone could get what they needed to produce and distribute media. People relied on the 'media Gods' to produce media and distribute it, the 'media Gods' controlled how and when consumers got the media and the tone and attitude of the media products. However, now people can produce and share media using small devices such as, laptop's and mobile phones which are reasonably cheap, therefore more people are able to produce and share media. Using websites like Youtube, Myspace and wikipedia allow consumers to distribute their opinions and information to everyone, theses are also places where you can get information from. This is all helped by Web 2.0 which is where everybody contributes to internet, sharing and producing media.
How far do you agree with Gauntlett?
I agree with his ideas that new media has become more of place where people share and distribute media to others, i also agree that the new media has slowly joined traditional media, and that it has not pushed traditional media out of the way. However new media is big competition for traditional media nowadays and is constantly growing.
How might Gauntlett's ideas be applied to the music industry?
These figures show how the music industry works now, comparing it to how the music industry used to work, we can clearly see that Gauntlett's ideas can be applied to the music industry.